sendmail 8.14 has a serious memory corruption bug in it
Bill Hacker
wbh at conducive.org
Tue Feb 19 13:59:10 PST 2008
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Uh, Bill, I think you are misinterpreting the thread. He's simply saying
that PacBell won't assign reverse DNS for his IP. It has nothing to do
with RFC's, sendmail, or anything else.
-Matt
I beg to differ ...
Yes - not being willing [1] AND able to *get* a PTR RR is one issue [2].
But criticising an MTA admin (your server...) - especially in this day
and age - for not accepting traffic for lack of valid DNS (in general)
and PTR RR in particular, I quote:
>> "If someone rejects mails based on some local rules, then he might
>> not receive a reply..."
. .. and not being inherently aware that this is no mere 'local rule' but
RFC AND BCP,
. .. is head-up-and-locked behaviour from the general public - and badly
in need of enlightenment in the case of anyone involved in devel of what
remains the most heavily-used MTA on the planet (sendmail).
Sendmail CAN and generally DOES do the right thing - when configured by
those 'aware' - and the sendmail docs show the way.
Otherwise, bitching that a(ny) mailadmin should let down essential
guards is simply no longer an option. Too many WinCrobes, too little
bandwidth...
;-)
and this is all old-hat on various MTA mailing lists, deosn't really
belong here 'atall'.
Regards,
Bill
[1] Lest we forget, it was this very same rejection - from *your* server
in fact, that caused me a year or three ago to get off my own lazy
backside, send an e-mail, follow-up by phone...
. . and get a PTR RR into place for *my* MTA in just about five
wall-clock minutes.
OTOH, we did/do have the appropriate grade of service contract - a full
rack in a data center with 24x7 admin staff on-site.
[2] Or using the ISP's host when you cannot get what you know you need.
More information about the Kernel
mailing list