On 17 Jul 2005 at 17:31, Mirko Gräfen wrote about
"AW: [exim] can´t authenticate but s":
| Mmmmh...
|
| i think i couldn´t point it out.
Sorry, but it's no clearer this time.
| if i try to send a mail from my MUA through my server, the MUA tries to
| authenticate against the exim.
| authentication fails.
And I assumed you've asked for help with that in a separate thread,
since you said "i told you all, ...".
| the point is:
| if i tried to send a mail to user@xyz - for example - delivery wouldn´t
| work. my server doesn´t relay the mail, because i wasn´t authorized to do so
| --> exim should behave like this - ok.
Right.
| if the recipient of my mail is someuser@mydomains, the server delivers the
| mail without having authorized me to send mail through my server´s smtp.
And I assumed that "mydomains" are domains hosted on your server.
Since you've hidden all usefull details, there's no way to check.
| it wasn´t meant the way, everybody who wants to send an email to
| someuser@mydomains has to authenticate. but at the moment you only need to
| know an valid email adress of the hosted domains without the right
| user/password for it to relay mails to allusers@mydomains.
If "mydomains" are local domains hosted by the server in question,
then that is not relaying. It is simply accepting messages addressed
to valid local users. By definition, anyone sending messages to
local addresses knows a valid local address. There is no reason to
treat senders who could have authenticated, but didn't, differently
from other unknown senders.
| i hope this made it a little bit plainer.
No, sorry. Are you saying that you want exim to notice when the
client tries to authenticate and fails, and in that case refuse all
messages not just relay attempts?
Or are you saying you want to prevent unauthenticated clients from
giving a local address as the envelope sender?
Or something else?
- Fred
