On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
I'll follow this suggestion: keeping all non RFC options commented (exclude
format control, exclude MX control, accept NULL sender, etc.), and improving
documentation.
Here's another feature request for you...
I assume some ISPs here use vpopmail
Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
I'll follow this suggestion: keeping all non RFC options commented
(exclude format control, exclude MX control, accept NULL sender,
etc.), and improving documentation.
Here's another feature request for you...
I assume
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Rick Macdougall wrote:
I assume some ISPs here use vpopmail and also need to do backup mx for
customers who run their own mailservers. Without the chkuser patch, simply
adding those customer domains to morercpthosts would allow us to relay for
them. With chkuser, anything
At 18.34 24/11/2004, you wrote:
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 04:17 am, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
CORRECTION TO THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE.
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER is in 2.0.7.
This version may be considered stable, despite of its devel attribute.
I tried to use it.. looks like I need to
Jeremy,
you should add also CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER.
When CHKUSER_SENDER_FORMAT or CHKUSER_SENDER_MX are defined,
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER will exclude NULL SENDERS from those checkings.
This is the new default in the last distributions, after
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER has been added:
CORRECTION TO THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE.
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER is in 2.0.7.
This version may be considered stable, despite of its devel attribute.
On next days I'll publish a 2.0.8 release, and update online
documentation. 2.0.8 that will probably be the definitive stable chkuser,
with the most
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 04:17 am, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
CORRECTION TO THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE.
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER is in 2.0.7.
This version may be considered stable, despite of its devel attribute.
I tried to use it.. looks like I need to patch with 2.0.6 and then patch the
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
One general question, before I publish 2.0.8:
Does it make sense to have format checking enabled as default?
I think it's beyond the scope of the functionality of the chkuser
patch, to be honest.
Perhaps the code could be split up into chkuser, which does its
Perhaps the code could be split up into chkuser, which does its purpose
in
validating local recipients, and another patch that attempts to perform
some
checks on the envelope sender.
I agree with that. chkuser is great, but in some particular cases the only
desirable feature is to validating
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 04:53 pm, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
mail from:
571 sorry, sender address has invalid format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)
HUH?
this is fixed in a newer version I hope?
Hi,
Is CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER_WITH_TCPREMOTEHOST defined in your config
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
mail from:
571 sorry, sender address has invalid format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)
HUH?
this is fixed in a newer version I hope?
Hi,
Is CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER_WITH_TCPREMOTEHOST defined in your config ?
From the manual
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER_WITH_TCPREMOTEHOST 2.0.5
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 04:53 pm, Rick Macdougall wrote:
CHKUSER_ENABLE_NULL_SENDER_WITH_TCPREMOTEHOST 2.0.5 defined
Enables accepting null sender from hosts which have a name
associated to their IP
oh, and we don't do reverse dns lookups.. that would explain
I had the same problem I had to make sure that the patch was applied
correctly otherwise it will not accept your bounce messages.
Remo
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Kitchen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] just
13 matches
Mail list logo
