From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 15 07:21:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00587 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:21:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00580; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:21:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmb) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Message-Id: <199801151521.HAA00580@hub.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MAIL FROM: address check commented out in /etc/mail additions? In-Reply-To: from Font at "Jan 15, 98 00:10:01 am" To: font@Mcs.Net (Font) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:21:05 -0800 (PST) Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Font wrote: > Playing around with some antispam/antirelay mechanisms on my new mail > server, I added in the rulesets from /etc/mail/sendmail.cf.additions as > well as the check_rcpt from http://www.sendmail.org/antispam.html, but > found that non-resolving MAIL FROM: domains weren't being rejected. Upon > closer examination I found that a line in sendmail.cf.additions had been > commented out: > > # R $* < @ $+ > $#error $: "451 Domain does not resolve" > > I was just curious as to whether this was intentional (what are the > disadvantages here? can some legit mail be rejected?) or just overlooked. > I also noticed that these rules were slightly different from the ones on > the sendmail site, but I don't know enough about rulesets yet to be able > to question anything. :-) intentional....there are a lot of broken DNS configurations out there. having the comment in place lets the user decide whether or not to talk to broken DNS configurations. i would rather not make that decision for everyone. rather give them the tool and let them use it, just like you did ;) jmb