|
|
|
|
||||||
| comp.mail.sendmail Configuring and using the BSD sendmail agent. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Outils de la discussion |
|
|
#1 |
|
Messages: n/a
Hébergeur: |
I block mail with a trailing dot in the RCPT_TO field.
I use these rules, and they do well. SLocal_check_rcpt R<$+@mydomain.ru.> $#error $: "553 Trailing dot in the recipient address." But does it break any RFC ? The reason of blocking is in the filter spamooborona whitelist. Spamooborona works only for mailboxes listed in the whitelist. So if mailbox user@mydomain.ru is in the whitelist, and mail is with user@mydomain.ru. in the RCPT_TO, spam will reach the user. Received: from killersoft.com ([122.43.86.163]) by mail.mydoman.ru (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3FAToYq001563 for <postmaster@mydomain.ru.>; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:53 +0600 .... .... X-Spam-Flag: SKIP X-Spam-Yversion: Spamooborona 1.5.2 |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Messages: n/a
Hébergeur: |
In article <1187876789.404392.187780@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>
Sciurus <sciurus@mail.ru> writes: >I block mail with a trailing dot in the RCPT_TO field. >I use these rules, and they do well. >SLocal_check_rcpt >R<$+@mydomain.ru.> $#error $: "553 Trailing dot in >the recipient address." > >But does it break any RFC ? Not AFAIK - that is certainly not valid syntax for an email address. Just be careful with the fact that sendmail.cf internally uses a trailing dot to indicate "canonical domain part" - testing the RCPT argument directly as you do should be fine, but if some standard ruleset processing has been done you're likely to have a trailing dot on all valid addresses (it is removed on "output" of course). --Per Hedeland per@hedeland.org |
|
![]() |
| Outils de la discussion | |
|
|