Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sendmail tricks anyone? Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.970422131702.14371B-100000@cedb> In-Reply-To: <19970422202251.WE20864@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, J Wunsch wrote:
> 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.
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 :)
> Otherwise, our MXen (which are out of our administration domain) would
> accept the mail on our behalf, and finally deliver it to us.
We haven't used offsite MX since switching from UUCP to leased line so
it wasn't a concern here.
While the {SpamIP} rule won't be useful, the others will catch relay
attempts and that's what this rule set is for.
To block incoming spam from known spammer, UUCP and other intermittent
connection sites, will need to use check_mail and check_compat to look
at domain names instead of IPs. Not nearly as good, but certainly better
than nothing. See
http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/%7Eca/email/check.html
for details.
Dan
--
Dan Busarow 714 443 4172
DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com
Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.UW2.3.95.970422131702.14371B-100000>