Looks like a bug. Unless anyone can think of any reason why a message should be accepted without a recipient username...?
-- Sam Clippinger On 2/25/10 4:24 AM, Hans F. Nordhaug wrote: > * Hans F. Nordhaug<[email protected]> [2010-02-14]: > >> * Sam Clippinger<[email protected]> [2010-02-13]: >> >>> Messages with an empty sender address are legal -- they are typically >>> used for bounce messages. Because of that, spamdyke will allow them. >>> >>> However, messages with empty usernames (e.g. "@example.com") are not >>> legal and should not be allowed. This could indicate a bug in >>> spamdyke... is there any chance you still have the mail log entries that >>> correspond to those addresses? It would be very handy to see what was >>> actually sent with those messages. >>> >> I didn't have the a log entry for the example I posted, but I ran the >> config test again and looked for some newer problems. I looked at the >> following error. >> >> ERROR(graylist-level): Unable to read graylist sender directory >> /var/spamdyke/graylist/kompakt.no/modulonet.fr/ezewuehuuw1728:irectory >> ERROR(graylist-level): Failed to create file in directory: >> /var/spamdyke/graylist/kompakt.no/gvt.net.br/vuaqanipos2110/spamdyk266176143_28737: >> Not a directory >> >> The corresponding entry in the SMTP log: >> >> 02-02 21:07:44 spamdyke[31368]: DENIED_GRAYLISTED from: >> [email protected] to: @kompakt.no origin_ip: 85.68.111.68 >> origin_rdns: abo-68-111-68.mrs.modulonet.fr auth: (unknown) >> >> So it seems this might be a bug in Spamdyke or? >> > Sam, you never replied to this. Is it a bug or a feature? > > Hans > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
