As EE mentioned, port 587 for submission is preferable (if you can get clients to switch).
Justice London wrote: > I'll play around with adding a couple more blacklists. I was having > issues with a few specific clients using zen, so that's why I wasn't > using it for the time being (as you mention it has dynamic addresses). > > Justice London > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:21 -0700, Eric "Shubes" wrote: >> You might want to change sbl-xbl to zen. sbl-xbl will be going away at some >> point. Be aware though, that zen additionally includes dynamic addresses. >> >> I'm running with the qtp moderate blacklists: >> http://qtp.qmailtoaster.com/trac/browser/trunk/etc/blacklists-moderate >> >> You might want to try adding one or two of these and see if it helps at all. >> I doubt that it will make a big impact though, as you're already catching a >> large number. Every little bit helps though. >> >> Justice London wrote: >>> Yes, probably 80-90% of the mails are rejected outright, but that still >>> leaves about 30-40cps (on average) that get through. The majority seem >>> to be various spambot addresses that haven't made it to blacklist >>> territory yet. Don't have a tremendous number of blacklists in place, >>> though: -r sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org -r bl.spamcop.net -r list.dsbl.org >>> >>> Justice London >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Eric "Shubes" wrote: >>>> Are you using something more than the stock blocklist? That can reduce your >>>> scanning load substantially. >>>> >>>> Justice London wrote: >>>>> Yeah, but it's better than just getting the message rejected, which >>>>> seems to be happening right now if something happens to spamassassin. >>>>> This is bad since our clients then call and complain to no end. >>>>> >>>>> Justice London >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:31 +0200, Janno Sannik wrote: >>>>>> seems dangerous since this could be exploited by hitting mailserver with >>>>>> lot's of spam and getting it to go through that way >>>>>> >>>>>> Justice London wrote: >>>>>>> Is there a way to get simscan/spamassassin to do a soft reject of >>>>>>> messages, say under high load situations where spamassassin isn't >>>>>>> responding properly? I have found that when spamassassin either can't >>>>>>> accept a new connection, for whatever reason, that the client is passed >>>>>>> a 451 error right away. Is there a way to instead just have simscan >>>>>>> fail the spamassassin test and just pass the message un-checked? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Justice London >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> -- -Eric 'shubes' --------------------------------------------------------------------- QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
