Article delegate-en/3463 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
search
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
[Reference:<_A3461@delegate-en.ML_>]
Newsgroups: mail-lists.delegate-en

[DeleGate-En] Re: SPAM blocking by DeleGate (Re: delegate rejects domains not in the list)
10 Aug 2006 18:35:05 GMT Martin Papadopoulos <payeabdyi-y27ap3mdsbfr.ml@ml.delegate.org>


hello yutaka,

unfortunately there is some real bad news !
even companies like *b*y do not follow smtp protocol with ehlo , ehlo-mx
and so forth.
i don't recommend this setup , not even to your site, because there is
definetly a large amount
of valid mails that gets rejected.
it is a shame, that such large companies do not folow rfc's and best
practices.

greetz
martin papadopoulos

Yutaka Sato schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I uploaded 9.2.4-pre14 including SMTP extension as follows which may be
> useful in your case:
>
> <URL:http://www.delegate.org/delegate/Manual.htm?SMTPCONF>
>
>   
>> SMTPCONF parameter* ==  SMTPCONF=what:conf
>>                    --  default: SMTPCONF=bgdatasize:64K
>>
>>  reject:{nohelo,nofrom,pipeline,nomx,notselfmx,notmxhelo}
>>    Reject the DATA or the session if a specified condition is true.
>>
>>     "nohelo" -- the client does not say "HELO"
>>     "nofrom" -- the client does not say "MAIL FROM"
>>     "pipeline" -- the client send command without waiting server's response
>>     "nomx" -- the client's host does not have a MX record
>>     "notselfmx" -- the client'host is not the MX of itself
>>     "notmxhelo" -- the domain in the HELO is not the MX of the client's host
>>
>>    Multiple conditions can be specified concatenated with "+" as
>>    SMTPCONF="reject:nomx+nohelo+nofrom+pipeline".
>>     
>
>
> In message <_A3460@delegate-en.ML_> on 08/08/06(12:26:40) I wrote:
>  |In message <_A3459@delegate-en.ML_> on 08/08/06(12:01:10) I wrote:
>  | |In message <_A3458@delegate-en.ML_> on 08/08/06(01:27:31)
>  | |you Martin Papadopoulos <payeabdyi-y27ap3mdsbfr.ml@ml.delegate.org> wrote:
>  | | |it would be awesome if you could implement an smtp reject for non mx
>  | | |servers.
>  | | |i mean that if the reverse lookup entry does not contain a valid MX
>  | | |record, or
>  | | |to satisfy scenario of multiple mx records on one IP to checkout the
>  | | |helo domain if it has
>  | | |an mx record.
>  | | |
>  | | |it is only a request though.
>  | |
>  | |Doing access control based on the (existence of) MX record seems useful
>  | |and I'll support it in the next release.
>  |
>  |I tested an extenstion like the enclosed patch with a parameter as follows:
>  |
>  |  RELIABLE="_MX.*"
>  |
>  |It seems working as I expected to reject hosts without a MX record.
>  |It will be able to be extended to "with A", "with AAAA", "with PTR" or so.
>
> Cheers,
> Yutaka
> --
>   9 9   Yutaka Sato <y.sato@delegate.org> http://delegate.org/y.sato/
>  ( ~ )  National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
> _<   >_ 1-1-4 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8568 Japan
> Do the more with the less -- B. Fuller
>
>   



  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
@_@V