On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:49:46 +0100, Graeme Fowler <graeme@???>
wrote:
>On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 18:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Did you read what you quoted? They think their product does not need
>> fixing as it is working as designed.
>
>And they're correct.
I beg to differ.
>...now, back in the real world, many people will disagree *but* their
>design decision has been made based on facts of which none of us are
>privy (the conversation above is, after all, hypothetical). If that
>gateway decides that an unresponsive backend merits a 550 to remote
>senders, so be it.
I consider this fatal even for incoming e-mail from the site's point
of view, but in this case we have _outgoing_ mail 550'ed, where there
is no "infrastructure" to be "protected" by hiding stuff.
> That's the *vendor's* design decision, whether any of
>us think that the design is right or wrong.
For a device that was designed to work with Internet E-Mail (and such
RFC-compliant systems can be expected on either side), I'd expect a
transparent proxy to refuse the connection, or to be configurable
>Can we all stop arguing about Marc's problem now? Hopefully moving your
>Exim system elsewhere will fix it, which is a much more elegant solution
>than bastardising protocol handling.
That helped, but we needed to bastardise the site's security policy to
be allowed to put an "unprotected" system in front of the Firewall. It
would have been easier (and saved at least two person-days in meetings
alone) if the transparent proxy would have better catered for a
not-too-uncommon error condition.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
