From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 7 18:48:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25609 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25601; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:48:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Message-Id: <199709080148.SAA25601@hub.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: spam and the FreeBSD mailing lists To: gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, ahd@kew.com, hackers@hub.freebsd.org, support@kew.com In-Reply-To: <19970907181727.43084@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from "John-Mark Gurney" at Sep 7, 97 06:17:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > please remember to distinguish between "mail from:" addresses > > and relays. there is *not* reasone that i know of that a > > "mail from:" address must be resolvable. > > if the "don't get your ACK's ba" they cant establish the TCP > > session in order to transfer the mail in the first place. > > actually.. yes it does... the mail from: is exactly that... the return > path... i.e. if it isn't resolvable, then it's not a valid return path... > now if you provide a uucp address.. then it's a bit harder to verify > that it's valid... have we talked about x.400 yet? the "mail from" might even be a martian network behind some relay. only the relay has to be contactable via TCP/IP. not the "mail from:" jmb two more bite the dust: Sep 7 18:18:31 hub sendmail[23726]: NOQUEUE: ruleset=check_relay, arg1=imsp015.netvigator.com, arg2=205.252.144.206, relay=root@localhost, reject=521 blocked.contact postmaster@FreeBSD.ORG Sep 7 18:32:45 hub sendmail[24585]: SAA24585: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=, relay=root@[205.164.68.2], reject=521 ... specially processed assorted meats? yuck!