virtusertable blocking seems to have no effect

[Glenn Dawson]

At 06:17 AM 3/29/2006, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>On Wednesday 29 March 2006 12:35 am, Glenn Dawson wrote:
>= I saw that, but you had that part right...I thought the only
>= problem was with getting the reject message to work properly.
>=
>= Anyway...
>=
>= This is what I typically do:
>=
>= foo at bar.com           localaccount1
>= bar at bar.com           localaccount2
>= @bar.com              error:nouser 550 No such user here
>
>Glenn, this is exactly what I have according to my initial posting
>in this thread.

Exactly, which is why I didn't think there was a problem with most of 
it, as re-stated above, and now again, here.

>I took the example from sendmail's cf/README:
>
>= Here is (almost) what I have in the virtusertable:
>=
>=       stol at example.com  foo
>=       hq at example.com    bar
>=       @example.com      error:5.7.0:550 No spam, thanks
>
>Unfortunately, as I write in that initial posting, although it does have
>some effect, it does not seem sufficient:
>
>= I can see the "No spam,thanks" messages logged in the maillog
>= (without the space after coma, for some reason), but there is
>= no reject=550 message logged (which interferes with my other
>= software)

What does "other software" refer to in this case?

>and some of these messages seem to pass through
>= (although others are intercepted by other anti-spam defenses).
>=
>= For example, here are the only two log entries, that a spam
>= message generates:
>=
>= Mar 28 13:45:58 corbulon sendmail[40026]: k2SIjvvb040026: 
><xgfytxswpcpc at blackalpinist.com>... No spam,thanks
>= Mar 28 13:45:58 corbulon sendmail[40026]: k2SIjvvb040026: 
>from=<example at example.net>, size=3305, class=0, nrcpts=0, 
>proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=example.example.net [xx.x.xx.xxx]
>=
>= Despite the "No spam,thanks" the message was accepted.

I don't see anything in the log entries above to indicate that the 
message was accepted at all.  What makes you think that it was?

On a general note, you may want to include the delay_checks 
feature.  That will allow sendmail to get most of the info about a 
message before seeing if it should be rejected or not.  If nothing 
else it allows you to have more meaningful log info on rejected mail.

-Glenn

>=
>= What am I doing wrong? Thanks!
>
>Yours,
>
>         -mi
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"