Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:52:41 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sendmail tricks anyone? Message-ID: <19970423085241.VL55418@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.970422131702.14371B-100000@cedb>; from Dan Busarow on Apr 22, 1997 18:20:44 -0700 References: <19970422202251.WE20864@uriah.heep.sax.de> <Pine.UW2.3.95.970422131702.14371B-100000@cedb>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Dan Busarow wrote:
> > > R$={SpamIP}$* $| $* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Access denied"
> >
> > Curious, do you have an idea whether it's possible here to have
> > sendmail accepting the mail but throwing it away? I guess, maybe by
> > defining a `null' mailer or such.
>
> Won't work. The only useful thing these new rules can return is
> an error. All of the address rewriting that gets done here is
> thrown away.
I thought of something like:
R$={SpamIP}$* $| $* $#null $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Access denied"
...
Mnull, P=/usr/bin/true, F=lsDFMAw5:/|@qrmn9, S=10/30, R=20/40,
T=DNS/RFC822/X-Unix,
A=true
> Anyway, the idea of using a 5XX error response is that repeated
> fatal errors might cause them to drop the address from their lists
> (ya, right :)
I doubt. I think they'll fall back to the less-prioritized MXen.
> While the {SpamIP} rule won't be useful, the others will catch relay
> attempts and that's what this rule set is for.
Yep.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970423085241.VL55418>