From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 19 20:01:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04008 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:01:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03996 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:01:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@awfulhak.org) Received: from gate.lan.awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA14262; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:43:27 GMT (envelope-from brian@gate.lan.awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <199711200143.BAA14262@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Terry Lambert cc: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mail spam, sigh... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:22:22 GMT." <199711192322.QAA09195@usr01.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:43:26 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Along this vein... I'd like to suggest adding the RBL support to the default > > sendmail file (freebsd.mc). This way, all FreeBSD systems would, by > > default, drop SMTP connections from the sites on the blacklist. > > > > I'd also like to add the anti-relay code to the file, but that's a bit > > trickier, I'm afraid (too easy to get wrong and screw things up). > > I have yet to see a clean way to make this work with a transiently > connected system. I'd guess that the majority of users are on > transiently connected systems (note: I did not say the majority of > FreeBSD boxes). I'm on a `transiently connected' system and now happily use the stuff in /etc/mail (introduced for 2.2.5). My objective is to figure out the HACK()s (Mike Burgett has already shown me some examples) and put 'em in the FAQ - unless someone gets there in front of me (I've got lots of other stuff to keep be busy with at the moment too). > We need to start thinking about a set of "out of the box" configurations: [.....] I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. What's the difference between a ``permanent'' and ``sometimes'' link (unless you're subtly referring to the fact that most if not all of these rules are done in the canonification stage, and many ``sometimes'' sites have FEATURE(nocanonify)) ? If we get something working for the ``sometimes'' sites, why wouldn't it also work with the ``permanent'' sites ? > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. -- Brian , , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....