postfix-users October 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > postfix-users archives
postfix-users: Re: hide (do not disclose) reject reason to clien

Re: hide (do not disclose) reject reason to client but log as usual

From: Costin Gusa <costinel_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Oct 13 2010 - 19:11:21 GMT
To: mouss <mouss@ml.netoyen.net>

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 22:03, mouss <mouss@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
>  Le 13/10/2010 00:43, Costin Gusa a écrit :
>>
>> see, mouss, that's the reason in my systems this email would have
>> never got a chance for "220 OK", even without any external spam filter
>> in place.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 22:42, The Doctor<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Doctor Who saying in the 1970s.
>>>
>>> What do I need to reverse.
>>>
>>> Tried another MTA and got reports that people were not getting e-mail.
>>>
>>> All right switch back.
>>>
>>> Forgot that the 'sendmail' was not the correct one.
>>>
>>> No problem, just use the postfix sendmail.
>>>
>>> Hmm!! No mail is getting delievered.
>>>
>>> What did I forget?
>>> --
>>> Member - Liberal International  This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici
>>> doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
>>> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist
>>> rising!
>>> http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
>>> Are you a real human: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm
>>>
>> ...because of the following header:
>>
>> Received: from localhost (localhost.nl2k.ab.ca [127.0.0.1])
>>        by doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2030912CFC90
>>        for<postfix-users@postfix.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:01:47 -0600
>> (MDT)
>
> then you're wrong. localhost is ok in an internal header. while you can
> check internal headers for spam signs, you should play on the safe side
> here. if you're new to the game, go on. but believe me, it is a "marathon"
> and you should not run too fast in the beginning! do not try to stop any one
> spam at the cost of spending your day and at the cost of blocking legitimate
> mail. the goal is not to block _all_ spam. the goal is to make the costs of
> dealing with spam low enough.
>
>

eh, sorry for rushing too fast, I red the wrong header, I misthought
that host said "helo localhost" to cloud9 :)
but anyway, 95% of my rejects are on helos+rbl+user unknown