On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 12:50 -0700, Jeff Lasman wrote:
So what. If they continue to send email after getting bounces that the email
address doesn't exist, then they should be blocked.
Absolutely.
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
--
## List details at
Hi, Jeff
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:52 -0700 in message number
201107261254.52611.bli...@nobaloney.net, received here on 27/07/2011
07:26:13, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net said:
Then why didn't they unsubscribe the addresses that got them on my blocklist
in the first place?
Human
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:32 +0200, Bill Hayles wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:52 -0700 in message number
201107261254.52611.bli...@nobaloney.net, received here on 27/07/2011
07:26:13, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net said:
Then why didn't they unsubscribe the addresses that got them
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:48, Always Learning e...@u6.u22.net wrote:
Surely the mailing list application should delete subscriptions when
deliveries bounce for a pre-determined number of occasions ?
No.
The mailing list application might disable the subscription, that is, set it
not to
Hi, Always Learning
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:48:40 +0100 in message number
1311763720.4184.8.ca...@m6.u226.com, received here on 27/07/2011 15:21:35,
Always Learning e...@u6.u22.net said:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:32 +0200, Bill Hayles wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:52 -0700 in message
On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 04:12:14 AM Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
The mailing list application might disable the subscription, that is, set
it not to receive further messages, after too many such bounces. Mailman
has options for handling this.
Unfortunately, mailing lists are not necessarily
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 15:39, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 04:12:14 AM Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
The mailing list application might disable the subscription, that is, set
it not to receive further messages, after too many such bounces. Mailman
has
Could I politely point out that my network, my rules is just as valid
as be strict in what you send and relaxed in what you receive?
This thread, sadly, is rehashing so many old and un-resolved threads on
hundreds of mailing lists. Please let it go, so we can all continue with
the focus of *this*
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 06:39 -0700, Jeff Lasman wrote:
My intended point is that if they're sending bounces for years they're not
playing by the rules, and I really don't want them. They may not be what you
call spammers, they may not even be what I call spammers, but they're
certainly
On Monday, July 11, 2011 02:16:00 AM Ian Eiloart wrote:
You'll want to check that the traffic really is spam. Some might be list
mail that people are still subscribed to. If you rejected the mail, then
lists (well, some of them) would automatically unsubscribe your addresses.
Then why didn't
Sorry for the delayed response... we had a hard-drive failure and have just
recovered older emails.
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 01:20:55 PM Hill Ruyter wrote:
If you were to use the ip addresses of senders to this old service you may
well inadvertently block IPs of legitimate services simply
On 10 Jul 2011, at 19:55, Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:30:09 am WJCarpenter wrote:
(I pay no attention to either of these cases except for occasionally
looking at the logs out of curiosity. They're both relatively small
compared to various other brute-force spam attempts
On 8 Jul 2011, at 17:08, Bill Hayles wrote:
Hi, Ian
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:29:00 + in message number
480139f4-4e0b-4bf6-b69f-7afa88ba3...@sussex.ac.uk, received here on
08/07/2011 17:52:29, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk said:
On 7 Jul 2011, at 14:31, Bill Hayles wrote:
But
On 10 Jul 2011, at 21:34, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 7/11/11, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net wrote:
I'm strongly considering automating taking all these IP#s and creating my
own
local DNS-based blocklist to run all company incoming email through, before
checking other blocklists.
Any
On 7/11/11, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Ooh, the legitimacy of a mail server on a dynamic IP is pretty low already.
When it's compromised, I don't think it has much legitimacy left!
I wasn't thinking so much of mail servers on dynamic IP but spam sent
through valid mail servers such as
On 11/07/11 20:11, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 7/11/11, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Ooh, the legitimacy of a mail server on a dynamic IP is pretty low already.
When it's compromised, I don't think it has much legitimacy left!
I wasn't thinking so much of mail servers on dynamic IP
On 7/11/11, Ted Cooper eximx09...@linuxwan.net wrote:
That's deep header inspection then - you shouldn't normally reject mail
because the 2nd or 3rd level of received headers is listed in a DNS
block list. That is a common mis-configuration of Barracuda appliances.
It means that innocent
On 11 Jul 2011, at 12:21, Ted Cooper wrote:
On 11/07/11 20:11, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 7/11/11, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Ooh, the legitimacy of a mail server on a dynamic IP is pretty low already.
When it's compromised, I don't think it has much legitimacy left!
I wasn't
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 19:34 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
There are two topics:
- SPAM detection and tagging
- SPAM blocking
If you check at the MTA, then you
can arrange this (false positives and false negatives
notwithstanding).
If you _check_ at MTA level, you can help
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 11:08 -0700, Jeff Lasman wrote:
We still get tens of thousands of hits every day, almost all from spammers.
They're all refused, no local address. But they keep coming. Year to year
percent of change so far is less than 1%.
I suppose I could create my own
On 7/10/2011 8:52 AM, Always Learning wrote:
Changing the IP address of that mail server should, and I believe will,
reduce the junk mail.
Every little bit counts, of course, but my data suggests that this only
helps a little bit. I do get a few spammer knocks on servers with IP
addresses
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:30:09 am WJCarpenter wrote:
(I pay no attention to either of these cases except for occasionally
looking at the logs out of curiosity. They're both relatively small
compared to various other brute-force spam attempts and spam attempts
for active addresses.)
I
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Jul 2011, at 19:55, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net wrote:
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:30:09 am WJCarpenter wrote:
(I pay no attention to either of these cases except for occasionally
looking at the logs out of curiosity. They're both relatively small
compared
Reading your email the following occurred to me.
I have a very old email address that I have not used actively for a number of
years. You would think the only thing in there would be spam but surprisingly
enough there are emails from legitimate services I also no longer use, like for
example a
On 7/11/11, Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net wrote:
I'm strongly considering automating taking all these IP#s and creating my
own
local DNS-based blocklist to run all company incoming email through, before
checking other blocklists.
Any opinions on that?
The first thing that came to mind is
On 2011-07-08 16:29, Ian Eiloart wrote:
At RCPT TO: apply personal blacklists, or DNSBL subscriptions, and so on.
Optionally, at RCPT time track the per-user DATA-time filters, and
temp-reject any new RCPTs with incompatible filters.
Then apply the DATA-time filters with a pure heart and sense
On 7 Jul 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 04:30:27 am Ian Eiloart wrote:
No, you should not bounce spam because the spammer won't know about it, but
SMTP time rejections will be different. A bonnet host won't keep hammering
away at a server that consistently
On 7 Jul 2011, at 14:31, Bill Hayles wrote:
But why not give users the tools to set up spam filters on the server,
where smtp time rejection is an option.
The honest answer is that I don't know how to - only to apply such filters
on a global scale. Something I need to look into.
We use a
Hi, Ian
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:29:00 + in message number
480139f4-4e0b-4bf6-b69f-7afa88ba3...@sussex.ac.uk, received here on
08/07/2011 17:52:29, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk said:
On 7 Jul 2011, at 14:31, Bill Hayles wrote:
But why not give users the tools to set up spam filters
On 6 Jul 2011, at 20:48, Bill Hayles wrote:
Hi, Ian
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:26:03 + in message number
ef12875f-8aa3-4895-b7ee-6f3e02105...@sussex.ac.uk, received here on
06/07/2011 21:27:50, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk said:
On 6 Jul 2011, at 15:36, Bill Hayles wrote:
Which
Hi, Ian
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:30:27 + in message number
9495f88d-e697-4d25-84e0-cf98a...@sussex.ac.uk, received here on
07/07/2011 15:28:13, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk said:
As a matter of principal I pass through everything.
Principle.
Whoops!
But why not give users the
Hi, Jeff
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:44:33 -0700 in message
201107061344.33522.bli...@nobaloney.net,
from Jeff Lasman bli...@nobaloney.net received here at 06/07/2011 22:54:39
It was said:
On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:48:26 pm Bill Hayles wrote:
Not necessarily. There are several end-user
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 04:30:27 am Ian Eiloart wrote:
No, you should not bounce spam because the spammer won't know about it, but
SMTP time rejections will be different. A bonnet host won't keep hammering
away at a server that consistently refuses its mail.
I'm not sure of that. We used
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 02:38, Ted Cooper eximx09...@linuxwan.net wrote:
On 05/07/11 21:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one must use
SPF, remember to NOT set it restrictively.
That is: never, ever use -all or similar constructs that
On 06/07/2011 09:09, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one must use
SPF, remember to NOT set it restrictively.
That is: never, ever use -all or similar constructs that restrict
message
handling to a few hosts, unless you are absolutely
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27, Mike Cardwell
exim-us...@lists.grepular.comwrote:
SPF causes mail delivery problems in some scenarios. I don't think
anyone would deny that. From my experience, in practice, your email is
more likely to be rejected because of a false positive on a spam
filtering
Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27, Mike Cardwell
exim-us...@lists.grepular.comwrote:
SPF causes mail delivery problems in some scenarios. I don't think
anyone would deny that. From my experience, in practice, your email is
more likely to be rejected because of a false
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 13:39, W B Hacker w...@conducive.org wrote:
Perhaps a 'Senior Moment' here - but I *thought* DKIM was the fix to (some
of) the SPF shortcomings, and had become the more widely adopted toolset?
Yep. SPF was pretty much a lame duck from the get-go, but DKIM solves more
of
On 6 Jul 2011, at 12:39, W B Hacker wrote:
Perhaps a 'Senior Moment' here - but I *thought* DKIM was the fix to (some
of) the SPF shortcomings, and had become the more widely adopted toolset?
No, it addresses a different issue, protecting rfc2822, not rfc2821. Actually,
they work quite
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:40, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Since few message paths involve both forwarding AND a mailing list,
How few is few, do you have any statistics?
Are they few enough to warrant broken email?
Even the difference between a mailing list and a forwarding is
I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost mail: silently discarded, placed
in the SPAM folder never to be seen again, than trouble with SPF. The
difference being the results of an SPF check failure is returned to you and is
thus visible, false positives 'magically' disappear - no problem at
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 16:01, Martin Nicholas
subscriptions.priv...@mgn.org.uk wrote:
I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost mail: silently discarded,
placed
in the SPAM folder never to be seen again, than trouble with SPF.
You're forgetting that several of the spam filtered messages
Hi, Martin
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:01:30 +0100 in message number
201107061501.31...@tv-science.co.uk, received here on 06/07/2011 16:28:59,
Martin Nicholas subscriptions.priv...@mgn.org.uk said:
I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost mail: silently discarded, placed
in the SPAM folder
On 6 Jul 2011, at 15:36, Bill Hayles wrote:
Hi, Martin
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:01:30 +0100 in message number
201107061501.31...@tv-science.co.uk, received here on 06/07/2011 16:28:59,
Martin Nicholas subscriptions.priv...@mgn.org.uk said:
I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost
On 6 Jul 2011, at 13:56, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:40, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Since few message paths involve both forwarding AND a mailing list,
How few is few, do you have any statistics?
No, I'm afraid I don't. But, forwarding is generally used
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:26:03 +
Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
Which is why my server does NO spam filtering. It's up to the
users what to do about spam;
The trouble with that is that the ideal situation is that spammers
simply can't deliver their email.
There are two topics:
-
http://wiki.exim.org/MailingListEtiquette#Don.27t_Restage_Old_Flame_Wars
I thank you for abiding by the advice in the Wiki article above.
Graeme
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this
Hi, Ian
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:26:03 + in message number
ef12875f-8aa3-4895-b7ee-6f3e02105...@sussex.ac.uk, received here on
06/07/2011 21:27:50, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk said:
On 6 Jul 2011, at 15:36, Bill Hayles wrote:
Which is why my server does NO spam filtering. It's up to
On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:48:26 pm Bill Hayles wrote:
Not necessarily. There are several end-user anti-spam packages, such as
Mailwasher, which will bounce rejected mail and make it appear that the
mail was never delivered.
Nope. Once the mail has been received by the server, there's
Hi all,
I use a machine (let's say it's called example.org) to compose and send email
with the From header set to my Gmail address (let's say f...@gmail.com).
I login to example.org as 'foo' so the envelope sender address is
f...@example.org but example.org is not gmail.com and this mismatch
On 05/07/11 16:11, Sebastian Tennant wrote:
What else can I do to remedy the situation?
Option 1
Use SMTP AUTH via smtp.gmail.com so you're not forging the sender domain.
Option 2
Set your email address to va...@example.org, but set the reply-to to
f...@gmail.com, again so you're not forging
On 5 Jul 2011, at 07:11, Sebastian Tennant wrote:
Hi all,
I use a machine (let's say it's called example.org) to compose and send email
with the From header set to my Gmail address (let's say f...@gmail.com).
I login to example.org as 'foo' so the envelope sender address is
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:31, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
My guess is that Google are allowing senders with SPF passes some slack on
other checks. So, you'd just want to publish a record for example.org.
On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one must use
SPF,
On 5 Jul 2011, at 12:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:31, Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
My guess is that Google are allowing senders with SPF passes some slack on
other checks. So, you'd just want to publish a record for example.org.
On a general basis, I
On 05/07/11 21:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one must use
SPF, remember to NOT set it restrictively.
That is: never, ever use -all or similar constructs that restrict message
handling to a few hosts, unless you are absolutely certain
Quoth Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk:
Can you link to the documentation?
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GBctx=mailanswer=185812
[...] So, you'd just want to publish a record for example.org.
I'll give this a try and if that doesn't work, maybe Ted's recommendations.
Seb
56 matches
Mail list logo
