Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Disable Sendmail DNS checks

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Aristidis Fesarlis

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 4:00:22 AM9/20/12
to
Hi,

is it possible to disable sendmail's DNS checks for certain users? In
particular, some of our users connect via an ISP who does not seem to
have forward DNS entries. So sendmail rejects those connections with a
'possibly forged' error. We also use require_rdns. Can I fine tune those
two settings?

thanks

Andrzej Adam Filip

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 8:32:25 AM9/20/12
to
FEATURE(`delay_checks') among other things disables DNSBL and RDNS
checks for authenticated users (SMTP AUTH).

Aristidis Fesarlis

unread,
Sep 25, 2012, 3:36:27 AM9/25/12
to
> FEATURE(`delay_checks') among other things disables DNSBL and RDNS
> checks for authenticated users (SMTP AUTH).

Any other way? I wouldn't want to do this. Just for specific users. Not
all authenticated users.

Message has been deleted

Andrzej Adam Filip

unread,
Sep 25, 2012, 5:35:35 PM9/25/12
to
Do you want to disable DNSBL and RDNS checks for specific IP ranges/nets?

YES => AFAIR you can use the following access table entries

# single IP address
connect:aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd OK
# */24 net
connect:eee.fff.ggg OK
# */16 net
connect:hhh.iii OK

Aristidis Fesarlis

unread,
Oct 3, 2012, 5:22:37 AM10/3/12
to
> Do you want to disable DNSBL and RDNS checks for specific IP ranges/nets?
>
> YES => AFAIR you can use the following access table entries
>
> # single IP address
> connect:aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd OK
> # */24 net
> connect:eee.fff.ggg OK
> # */16 net
> connect:hhh.iii OK
>
Does this work only for IPs, or for domains as well? And to avoid
confusion. Will the above settings enable relaying from those domains as
well? We wouldn't want that...

Aristidis Fesarlis

unread,
Oct 16, 2012, 3:52:38 AM10/16/12
to
> Does this work only for IPs, or for domains as well? And to avoid
> confusion. Will the above settings enable relaying from those domains as
> well? We wouldn't want that...
>
Anyone?
0 new messages