On 5/27/24 4:59 AM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 27, 2024 2:53 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
On 5/26/24 8:45 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 27, 2024 12:41 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
On 5/26/24 5:40 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wrot
May 27, 2024 2:53 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
> On 5/26/24 8:45 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
>
>> May 27, 2024 12:41 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
>>> On 5/26/24 5:40 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
>>>> May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wro
On 5/26/24 8:45 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 27, 2024 12:41 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
On 5/26/24 5:40 PM,gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
I'd like to use the fcrdns filter but one of my users has a non-negotiable need
to get mail fr
May 27, 2024 12:41 AM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
> On 5/26/24 5:40 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
>
>> May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to use the fcrdns filter but one of my users has a non-negotiable
>>> ne
On 5/26/24 5:40 PM, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
I'd like to use the fcrdns filter but one of my users has a non-negotiable need
to get mail from a
site with inept administration. Is there a way to let this one site bypass this
one filter?
May 26, 2024 9:46 PM, "Ian Darwin" wrote:
> I'd like to use the fcrdns filter but one of my users has a non-negotiable
> need to get mail from a
> site with inept administration. Is there a way to let this one site bypass
> this one filter?
>
> I have two fair
I'd like to use the fcrdns filter but one of my users has a
non-negotiable need to get mail from a site with inept administration.
Is there a way to let this one site bypass this one filter?
I have two fairly standard 'listen' clauses and the corresponding
matches. I had fcrdns on the first
records.
>>
>> I believe there is a limit in BIND suite (32) and OpenBSD libc (35) and
>> others, which restricts older gethostbyname() calls with struct hostent
>> results down to that 30-something number. Likely the used resolver was using
>> these old/ob
calls with struct
hostent results down to that 30-something number. Likely the used
resolver was using these old/obsolete libc functions…
But OpenSMTPD and filter FCrDNS and OpenBSD ASR all doing fine here,
because using getaddrinfo() alike under the hood with dynamic struct
addrinfo result allocation,
BIND suite (32) and OpenBSD libc (35) and others,
which restricts older gethostbyname() calls with struct hostent results
down to that 30-something number. Likely the used resolver was using
these old/obsolete libc functions…
But OpenSMTPD and filter FCrDNS and OpenBSD ASR all doing fine here,
be
FYI, I run into the same issue with a different provider:
relay.yourmailgateway.de which also has a large number of A records.
Trying to reproduce and digging deeper now, by adding debug logs etc.
Interesting... thanks for checking and having thought of my report. I
for myself didn't have any
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Tassilo Philipp wrote:
> > Mhmm… but they returned different results, for dig vs OpenSMTPd filter
> > lookup?
>
> Not sure, as I don't log the replies, but I don't think so.
>
>
> > May cache TTL have expired and record re-fetched with your local test?
Mhmm… but they returned different results, for dig vs OpenSMTPd filter lookup?
Not sure, as I don't log the replies, but I don't think so.
May cache TTL have expired and record re-fetched with your local test?
What’s your local cache software, is it able to handle large A record lists?
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 12:23, Tassilo Philipp wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply and your thoughts.
>
>> There should be nothing limit FCrDNS here, despite that
>> these are a lot of records.
>>
>> But have you tried the dig lookup below from the actual ma
Thanks for the reply and your thoughts.
There should be nothing limit FCrDNS here, despite that
these are a lot of records.
But have you tried the dig lookup below from the actual mail
server at the time (or shortly after) the time of the failure?
Yes, that was the first thing I tried, and I
> On 21. Jul 2020, at 12:46, Tassilo Philipp
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a strange problem, emails coming from a specific SMTP from SFR, namely
> smtp26.services.sfr.fr get incorrectly filtered by a fcrdns check. The filter
> line in question is:
>
> fil
Hello!
I just had to share this. :)
I made a makeshift reporter to see how many incoming SMTP connections
would fail on our server:
fcrdns-reporter: fcrdns-failure address=89.248.160.66
host=no-reverse-dns-configured.com result="Hostname resolved to a
different IP"
Someone out
You can apply the check at further phases if you
> > need to log more details, this is up to you.
>
> Thank you for the check-fcrdns filter. Would it be possible for you to
> please share your thoughts on the filter, specifically the checks that
> the filter performs.
>
Monsieur Gilles,
> helo misc@,
>
> I wrote an article a few days ago:
>
> https://poolp.org/posts/2018-12-06/opensmtpd-proc-filters-fc-rdns/
>
>
> Since then, I implemented the check-fcrdns builtin filter allowing us to
> filter incoming sessions that do not ha
helo misc@,
I wrote an article a few days ago:
https://poolp.org/posts/2018-12-06/opensmtpd-proc-filters-fc-rdns/
Since then, I implemented the check-fcrdns builtin filter allowing us to
filter incoming sessions that do not have a valid FCrDNS.
How does it work ?
1- configure your
20 matches
Mail list logo
