On Dec 17, 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 14:12, Greg Earle wrote:
Short of not using SORBS, is there anything else that I can try?
I really don't like the idea of disabling the SORBS check, but he
has to be able to send mail out ...
There's probably a better way, but I bet you could do what you want
using BLOCK2 instead of BLOCK and a maildrop filter.
To be honest, the "BLOCK2" stuff confuses me. Is there some
difference in behavior between "BLOCK" and "BLOCK2"?
I thought that by using
BLACKLISTS='-block=dnsbl.sorbs.net,BLOCK'
meant that "couriertcpd" gets invoked with
-block=dnsbl.sorbs.net,BLOCK
as an argument, and that if the SORBS test returns (a false)
positive, to set "BLOCK" in the environment of the caller,
and "esmtpd" would trigger off of this and block the relay
with a 511 code (what's this code for?). If "BLOCK2" is
used, then what happens?
On Dec 17, 2004, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Greg Earle wrote:
In my /path/to/courier/etc/smtpaccess/default file, there is
137.78 allow,RELAYCLIENT,BOFHCHECKDNS=0
Change that to:
137.78 allow,RELAYCLIENT,BLOCK,BOFHCHECKDNS=0
This will set "BLOCK" to an empty value, and your co-worker won't be
blacklisted.
Again, this seems non-sequitur-ish: it seems like the $BLACKLISTS
construct has the same effect ("if blocked in dnsbl.sorbs.net, then set
$BLOCK") - yet doing that causes the block; whereas you're saying if
"BLOCK" is set to an empty value here, it won't. What's the difference?
Short of not using SORBS, is there anything else that I can try?
I really don't like the idea of disabling the SORBS check, but he
has to be able to send mail out ...
I *think* that AUTHenticating yourself also gets you past the BLOCK
setting. I might be wrong.
Indeed it does! Thanks Gordon. This is actually my/our preferred
solution - we'd prefer it if everyone that sent mail out through
our Courier server use Authenticated SMTP anyway. So I think
we'll close this out by having my co-worker leave Authentication
enabled and skip the addition of ",BLOCK" to smtpaccess/default.
Thanks to both of you for your replies.
- Greg