On 09/12/2005 12:03 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I suspect that the lack of affected mail in the scoring corpus is the
reason why it's gone unnoticed. I'd been meaning to run tests to
compare the hits between:
-- notfirsthop and firstuntrusted
I'd love to see that.
Just gotta get the tuits to do it. Going to be harder now that my lift
ticket is valid as of yesterday. :)
-- notfirsthop and "not private and not first hop"
Well, the current 'notfirsthop' in SA 3.1.0 is actually "notfirsthop,
notinternal, notprivate".
In sub check_rbl_backend they make use of "ip_list_uniq_and_strip_private" on
the fullexternal set of IPs..
Ah... I missed that. When I generated my test message I didn't realize
I sent it across the 'net and not my vlan. While using that test
message I didn't notice that I was testing with a public IP before the
smart host and not the private IP I'd have on the vlan.
The situation still sucks though. I can't have remote users use ESMTPSA
to send mail through our servers (without stripping received headers
before sending the message) since they'll have a public IP.
Getting them to log in via the vlan is quite the battle, exasperated by
a low computer aptitude found in our manufacturing centric environment.
Oh well, that's what we get for being hours from the city with extremely
limited connectivity options from an uncooperative, and generally inept,
telco.
Daryl
