From: Rob Chanter (robcadelie.national.com.au)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 17:53:09 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:35:38PM +0000, Matt Fretwell wrote:
> Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
>
> > > The smtpd_helo_restrictions are not final, they are followed by
> > > smtpd_sender_restrictions and smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
> >
> > That was my understanding. Thanks for confirming this - I had a minor
> > panic attack when I read Rob's mail.
>
> I admit, the way it was phrased did make Rob's reply sound like you were
> an open relay :) However, Rob's snippet below:
>
> > > you missed the opportunity to explain DUNNO in access maps, and give
> > > an example that is an open relay to any host identifying itself as
> > > woozle.
>
> I think he meant, I may be wrong, that you didn't give an example of how
> NOT to use helo checks under recipient restrictions in a way that would
> make the system an open relay. I don't know if that sounds any clearer :)
>

Yes, you restated my point more clearly, as I sort of elaborated in my other
reply. On the whole it was a good howto, the only problem being if someone mixed
two approaches and ended up with an open relay.

> But, seeing as you use the same method as I, and put restrictions under
> their respective classes, it would be somewhat irrelevant to your specific
> howto.
>

Indeed.

cheers
rob

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]