On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:28:10AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 01:17:24AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > I'd like to point out that one of the uses of domain literals is
> > > notifying the postmaster of a site that she is running an open relay.
> > > A lot of the DNS block list use postmaster@[IP] to notify a site of
> > > being listed.
> > Actually, the correct thing to do would be to just use
> > RCPT TO:<postmaster>
> > on the relay box.
> > Yes, under 2821, postmaster is allowed (as a MUST, I believe) to be
> > unqualified.
> > using "postmaster@[IP]" seems very broken.
> Not really. It's fully mandated by the RFCs, and I too, have used mail@[IP]
> to reach sites sometimes.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
> What are you willing to bet that more MTAs accept postmaster@[IP] than
> postmaster?
They should really accept both. However, as Dr. H points out, the former
is used as spam (and perhaps some reporting) wheras I've not seen the
latter used as spam.
> > As a side question, will exim4 allow RCPT TO:<postmaster>, or am I going to
> > have to patch it?
> Fully supported in exim4 with ACLs. Exim 3, not necessarily, I think some
> receipient checks can reject that.
point <-------------------------------------------------------> Marc
What I was asking was whether exim would accept unqualified. This check
happens before any acls are run. Sorting out the actual acceptance is
trivial.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
