On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:51:01 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> > SpamAssassin usually deals with this problem by looking for
> > authentication in the header, but that's not recorded here.
>
> There is no auth hint in the header when using the submission server.
>
> Received: from
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2016, 13:17 + schrieb RW:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
> Marcus Schopen wrote:
>
>
> > The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> > for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
> >
> > Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
>
> Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by MY_SERVER_IP
> Received: from dialup-client-IP by smtp-out.myoffice.de
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:13:02 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> i have this in my local.cf:
>
> trusted_networks 88.2.89.3
> ...
> [17721] dbg: received-header: relay 88.2.89.3 trusted? no
> internal? no msa? no
>
> is this normal?
It is if the chain of trust is
?
---PedroD
From: Martin <ma...@ntlworld.com>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: trusted_networks question...
From: Pedro David Marco [mailto:pedrod_ma...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, Septem
From: Pedro David Marco [mailto:pedrod_ma...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:51 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: trusted_networks question...
Hi there...
i have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks88.2.890.3
On 12.03.12 05:26, Alain Tesio wrote:
I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
old SA on apparently outdated, unsupported debian.
I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this IP in
local.cf
It's not working, whereas other settings in this file
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Alain Tesio wrote:
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this
IP in local.cf
That's not the same whitelisting. If you actually want to whitelist
read
Thanks for your help,
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this
IP in local.cf
That's not the same whitelisting. If you actually want to whitelist
read the docs.
This comment in
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Alain Tesio wrote:
Thanks for your help,
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to
this IP in local.cf
That's not the same whitelisting.
On 7 Nov 2011 08:19:43 -0500, spamassas...@horizon.com wrote:
[snip]
The question, of course, is WTF?
no, what line is 0/0 in ?
are you sure that computer is not haveing ipv6 ? :=)
For some reason, spamassassin thinks that 0/0 is trusted, even after my
most strenuous attempts to dissuade it:
$ grep _networks /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:# trusted_networks 212.17.35.
/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:clear_trusted_networks
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:31:53 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
Upgrade it to NetAddr-IP-4.055 or downgrade to 4.048.
latest is 4.056
just cant find the line with 0/0 here :(
On 07.11.11 08:19, spamassas...@horizon.com wrote:
For some reason, spamassassin thinks that 0/0 is trusted, even after my
most strenuous attempts to dissuade it:
$ grep _networks /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:# trusted_networks 212.17.35.
Probably hit by a bug in NetAddr::IP, see:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
Upgrade it to NetAddr-IP-4.055 or downgrade to 4.048.
Bingo! I upgraded to 4.056 and no more problem!
Apparently there'a a workaround, too, mentioned
in comment 20 above:
4.053
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 11:40 -0400, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option. Right now I have
it set to:
trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
When I try to use this option; I login through telnet port 25, and send
the test spam string (from the 10.0.1.0 subnet) it
On 29.3.2010 18:40, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option.
Right now I have it set to:
trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
In postfix, I need to have spamassassin listed under
smtpd_recipient_restrictions so that it will only scan
incoming emails however it
On 3/29/2010 11:40 AM, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option. Right now I have it
set to:
trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
In postfix, I need to have spamassassin listed under
smtpd_recipient_restrictions so that it will only scan incoming emails
however it
On Mon, July 13, 2009 23:55, mouss wrote:
so whenever you put an internal_network line, you should add the same
line with trusted instead of internal.
in other words, internal cant be untrusted
so if you see spam with origin as internal networks ip then remove that ip as
internal
--
xpoint
On Tue, July 14, 2009 00:08, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
so whenever you put an internal_network line, you should
add the same line with trusted instead of internal.
If that is indeed true, it is a BUG IMO.
Brain dead requirement!
at least its open source so one can make a good patch to fix it
On Tue, July 14, 2009 00:42, mouss wrote:
the requirement is reasonable. an internal relay that wouldn't be
trusted is irrelevant. why would you want to skip PBL/DUL lookup for
an IP that may be forged?
if thats the problem the mail wont get delivered in the first place
--
xpoint
where did your squirrelmail go now ?
I use it when I'm not sitting at home. It is up on my server, but I do not use
it if I have access to my workstation.
I prefer Outlook Express with OE-QuoteFix over any other IMAP client I have
tested.
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
MrGibbage a écrit :
#ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
internal_networks 75.119.219.171
trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
Every entry in internal_networks must appear in
trusted_net-
On Tue, July 14, 2009 13:25, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
[7594] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.1/32 as it has already been
included
[7594] warn: netset: cannot include 10.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included
It looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
rfc1918
sa 3.3 ?
--
xpoint
On Tue, July 14, 2009 13:25, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
[7594] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.1/32 as it
has already been included [7594] warn: netset: cannot
include 10.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included It
looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
rfc1918
Yeah. My LAN is
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98
trusted_networks 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24 65.54.0.0/16
On Tue, July 14, 2009 14:48, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Yeah. My LAN is using 10/8 for hysterical reasons. Is there something wrong
here?
just that your source have now rfc1918 ranges hardcorded into sa, so remove
your own internal/trsuted/msa for rfc1918 will solve it
ps: i have not seen the
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98
trusted_networks 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24
62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98 trusted_networks
195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24
62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98 trusted_networks
195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
[snip]
when I put your lines in my config, I only seethe
127.0.0.1/32 warning.
It looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
I removed both the 127.0.0.1 AND 10/8 and this is happy again. It seems to
configure the internal networks as trusted
On Tue, July 14, 2009 21:26, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Duh. Dumb. Arrgh! Hit! Damn.
its rocket science :)
--
xpoint
MrGibbage a écrit :
I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and I guess
I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should put for those
two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking at the headers from
an email? I can tell you that my SA
MrGibbage a écrit :
#ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
internal_networks 75.119.219.171
trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
Every entry in internal_networks must appear in
trusted_net-
works;
so whenever you
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
MrGibbage a écrit :
#ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
internal_networks 75.119.219.171
trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
Every entry in internal_networks must appear in
trusted_net-
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
MrGibbage s...@pelorus.org wrote:
I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and
I guess I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should
put for those two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking
at the
On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
forwarders is trusted/msa
unless they rewrite the return-path
why does this change ?
or there is a possibility of mail
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:29:07 +0200 (CEST)
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
forwarders is trusted/msa
If you do it that
Wow, I had a feeling I was opening a can of worms here. This is one area
where I really feel the SA documentation could benefit by having some real
world examples.
Right now I am just going with the one internal_networks set to the ip of my
SA server. I'm not setting any trusted_networks. I
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/06/2008 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks manually
However:
# grep trusted
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks manually
However:
#
Nigel Frankcom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks manually
This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files are not used
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug
flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured;
it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks
manually
This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files
are
On Sat, June 21, 2008 20:05, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Should? What good is that lint anyway if it can't be used to test local rules?
spamassassin 21 -D --lint | less
does it confirm ?
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On 21/06/2008 2:05 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug
flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured;
it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks
manually
This is expected
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks manually
This is expected
On 21/06/2008 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure
On Sat, June 14, 2008 02:09, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
I think your can throw it
On Sat, June 14, 2008 02:42, Chris wrote:
Thanks, I'll discard it then, appreciate the help.
so one more time, you now test remote servers ip that use rfc1918 servers pools
waste
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On 12.06.08 10:25, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to trusted_networks,
if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is
On Thursday 12 June 2008 2:16 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
you should put at least your MX backups into trusted_networks AND
internal_networks, if there are any. You may put other servers, not under
your control, to trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
Hmm, I'm on DSL, so, should I place my IP in trusted_networks?
No. Your IP address does not relay mail to you.
For
instance, I did have this trusted_networks 192.168/16 71.48.160.0/20,
however, looking at the received line of the post I initally made, my IP is
now 71.51.96.186.
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:56 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Should I put the IP for mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com on the
trusted_networks line? That comes out to be 208.47.184.3. I also had this
as internal_networks internal_networks 71.48.160.0/20, is that correct?
Yes, if that
Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
I think your can throw it away.
On Friday 13 June 2008 7:09 pm, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
I think your can
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to
trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is incorrect...
Actually, that's
On 11.06.08 21:11, Chris wrote:
If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted networks
line to be set in my local.cf? If so, what addresses would I enter there?
I'm asking this because of this line in the Wiki:
Generally you want trusted_networks set to contain all
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to trusted_networks,
if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is incorrect...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Thursday 12 June 2008 2:16 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 11.06.08 21:11, Chris wrote:
If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted
networks line to be set in my local.cf? If so, what addresses would I
enter there? I'm asking this because of this line in the
Chris wrote:
If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted networks
line to be set in my local.cf?
In most cases you want to trust all the mailservers the MX back. If you
don't control any mailservers at all, then you would substitute to
trusting your ISPs mailsers.
For this, SA 3.2.* has its own rules for DNSWL, which you throw away
with your custom rule, since they are identically named. The built-in
rule for SA 3.2.* is:
header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW eval:check_rbl_sub('dnswl-firsttrusted',
'127.0.\d+.1')
describe RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
On 18.10.07 17:32, Lars Ippich wrote:
Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
from SA.
I guess that's the meaning of trusted_networks setting (or at least one of
its meanings)
Hm,
Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
from SA.
Hm, somehow I can't follow what you're trying to do. Can you post the
relevant parts of your configuration?
I did not find a solution to
Matthias,
Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
from SA.
Hm, somehow I can't follow what you're trying to do. Can you post the
relevant parts of your configuration?
Sure:
header
Lars Ippich schrieb am 18.10.2007 09:32:
header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOWX-DNS-Whitelist =~ /^low/
scoreRCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW-1
describe RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOWSender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust
[...]
# web.de
trusted_networks217.72.192.
2) Postfix adds the
xx and xxx are not integers between 0 and 255.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Peter Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:19 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Trusted_networks
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn:
Sorry, answered it myself - i had coffee, looked at it again and removed
the commas. Copy n paste from main.cf to local.cf might not always be
the best way to approach config changes for SA :)
Sorry to bother you
Peter Russell wrote:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
* Peter Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given:
Peter Russell wrote:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24,'
I have the
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Peter Russell wrote:
I have the following set for trusted networks
trusted_networks xx.1.0.0/16, xx.2.0.0/16, xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24, 127.0.0.0/8
What have i dont wrong?
Lose the commas.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL
Drop the node part of the address i.e. if I wanted 10.1.1.0/24 use 10.1.1/24
Peter Russell-4 wrote:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16,'
ram01 wrote:
Drop the node part of the address i.e. if I wanted 10.1.1.0/24 use 10.1.1/24
That actually makes no difference.
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 03:55 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
as much!
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on
No. Internal only if it's not directly accepting mail from client IPs
that you WANT to accept mail from. MXes and everything (internal
relays) after them are ALWAYS in both trusted and internal networks.
This is what tells SA that mail was sent directly from questionable
IPs to your
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on internal_networks. Assume for
simplicity I have a mail domain b.c. The MX records point to a.b.c.
I'm running SA on a.b.c for
I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
fill that in).
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Earthlink mail servers are ABSODAMNLUTELY not part
of my internal network. But if I do not list them with trusted
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
internal network stuff
This inspired me to make a brute force test. Something has changed in
the machine's configuration that allows me to remove all references to
internal or trusted networks and still run without ALL_TRUSTED coming
up and bugging me.
Now for the 3 tests as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[..]
Mail Submission Agent... accepts mail from your own clients' MUAs (also
known as UAs).
You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can do one
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I do want to accept such mail.
The human
Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
For 99% of systems there's no need to worry about listing systems that
aren't a part of your mail network in your trusted_networks (and never
list them in your internal_networks). Keep
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expected. (So why doesn't SA
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
What, you *trust* all your users? :)
--
John Hardin
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ross Boylan wrote:
...
Maybe it will help to be concrete. I'll use made up names to foil
spambots:
People send me mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] b.edu has an MX record. I use
fetchmail to pull my mail off a.b.edu, the actual host machine the MX
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
One example is when you are using
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER.
jdow wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
One example is when you
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one
Nothing trimmed in an attempt to keep things somewhat coherent...
Ross Boylan wrote:
Thank you for your very clear answers. I have a few follow-up questions
below.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 23:44 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on
Debian) I was unclear about trusted vs internal networks. After
reviewing previous emails on this list, here's what I think it is:
trusted_networks for hosts I trust to put good info in
Matt Kettler wrote:
...
Is the whole trusted_net, dnsbl business written up somewhere? I would
rather not waste your time; but searching the wiki doesn't turn anything up.
Not really, but I can go over it really fast..
First, SA parses all the received headers, in backward order,
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
