On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
From the documentation, msa_networks designates those servers that
accept only authenticated messages, regardless of type. I'm the new
guy on the list, and have some catching up to do with learning
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Royce Williams wrote:
I will also file a bug to suggest updates to the *_networks language
that is in direct contradiction to the advice in other parts of this
thread.
One thing I might add: It seemed to me that at certain points in the
discussion there was confusion as
Royce Williams wrote:
From the documentation, msa_networks designates those servers that
accept only authenticated messages, regardless of type. I'm the new
guy on the list, and have some catching up to do with learning how the
*_networks directives work, but the evidence is mounting that if
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:43:24PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
I would think that in this case the dynamic address blocks would need to
be explicitly defined.
That's why I starting this thread by saying that I went hunting for a
mua_networks equivalent, and couldn't find one.
OK, think about
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:43:24PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
I would think that in this case the dynamic address blocks would need to
be explicitly defined.
That's why I starting this thread by saying that I went hunting for a
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
* Create a mua_networks option. This would only need to interact with
msa_networks, and would allow msa_networks systems to become
self-aware. If a server is in msa_networks, and it sees someone
connecting from a
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:02:55AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
* Create a mua_networks option. This would only need to interact with
msa_networks, and would allow msa_networks systems to become
self-aware. If
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:02:55AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
* Create a mua_networks option. This would only need to interact with
msa_networks,
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:02:52AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:02:55AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
* Create a
On lør 10 apr 2010 17:25:56 CEST, Henrik K wrote
but I doubt dial-ups would be relays for other dial-ups.
you should really know better here
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:31:37PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:26:27PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
It also states that msa_networks propagates those hosts *_networks settings
recursively. Which means the dial-ups will be internal too.
Ah, interesting. So I should explicitly *not* put my dialup MSAs in
msa_networks, and
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:09:35 +0300
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:26:27PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Maybe I'm having a vocabulary problem. My MSAs are really also
MTAs - they receive mail from the customer, do an MX lookup on the
destination domain, and
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:09:35 +0300
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:26:27PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Maybe I'm having a vocabulary problem. My MSAs are really also
MTAs - they receive mail
Royce Williams wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
msa_networks defines the MSA by IP address. If SA runs on an MSA its
address is unlikely to be in the received headers. In that case SA has
no way of distinguishing an MSA from an MX server.
Yes!
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td15659736.html
... Daryl
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my re-re-re-reading. Nobody has said that my
example was broken (or was any good, for that matter), so I'm
operating from that.
With all
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my re-re-re-reading. Nobody has said that my
example was broken (or was any good,
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:31:37PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td15659736.html
... Daryl says:
So if (and I'll admit I don't think this occurred to me before) you're
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I think that an example snippet of.cf illustrating and briefly
explaining each of the three _networks options might be in order, and
might make the reading, re-reading, and re-reading of the docs a
little less
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
I
Royce Williams wrote:
Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td15659736.html
... Daryl says:
So if (and I'll admit I don't think this occurred to me before) you're
running SA on outgoing mail on your MSA right after you receive it (it's
Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
I was hoping for a magical 'mua_networks' option, which let me
enumerate the
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
I was hoping for a magical
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still
Hi,
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
I was hoping for a magical 'mua_networks' option, which let me
enumerate the IP space that
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 06:18:25 -0800
Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Henrik K wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general
Whoops - forgot to reply-all; resending with minor modifications.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 06:18:25 -0800
Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Fri, Apr
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:24:43 -0800
Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the address ranges into internal_networks is what you do if
you *don't* have separate MSAs and MX servers. Otherwise you you
put the MSAs into msa_networks and internal_networks. Anything that
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
I was hoping for a magical 'mua_networks' option, which let me
enumerate the IP space that my users
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
Sorry,
33 matches
Mail list logo
