Save the teapot fund

New CSS web design for Wibble proudly provided by Kelv.

Please contact the webmaster with any questions or concerns.

Wibble > List archives > postfix > 2004 > October

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required

To: postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
From: Rob Foehl <rwf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:01:22 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-to: zerbey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: postfix-users-outgoing@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200410011929.21881.rob0@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://www.postfix.org/lists.html>
List-post: <mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org>
List-subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postfix.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postfix.org>
References: <200410011929.21881.rob0@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, /dev/rob0 wrote:

How do I match a null HELO/EHLO other than with smtpd_helo_required? Or
should I stop worrying and learn to love the smtpd_helo_required?

Just use it. It probably won't catch much spam, but it's even less likelyto stop anything legitimate.


-Rob

Follow-Ups:
- Re: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
  - From: /dev/rob0
- Re: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
  - From: Ralf Hildebrandt

References:
- anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
  - From: /dev/rob0

Prev by Date: Re: Postfix virtual - confused
Next by Date: Re: Postfix virtual - confused
Previous by thread: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
Next by thread: Re: anti-UCE efficacy of smtpd_helo_required
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread