Tek Support wrote:
> So if I understand correctly, spamdyke can use spamhaus, and I do see
> it in my /etc/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf file (uncommented).  Which means
> I don't need the "BLACKLIST=" in my run file, is this correct?

Yes. Spamdyke does everything that rblsmtpd used to do (and a lot more).

> And if I might ask a followup question,  it was said in another post
> that spamdyke allows authenticated users in past spamhaus.  Ok, but if
> spamdyke allows authenticated users in, while using spamhaus, then why
> do I need port 587?

You don't need port 587 if you're using spamdyke.
You do need port 587 if you're not using spamdyke.

> And just out of curiosity, if spamdyke is a more versitile product,
> allowing my dynamic users to authenticate and send mail on port 25
> while also using spamhaus dynamic blocking, why isn't spamdyke
> installed by default?

spamdyke is fairly new to the toaster. I expect that it will become part of
the stock toaster at some point, but that's up to Erik Espinoza, who is the
toaster maintainer.

> Thanks
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sam Clippinger wrote:
>>> To answer #1, spamdyke will definitely use Spamhaus' DNS RBLs.  The
>>> default configuration of spamdyke (as installed by QTP) does not include
>>> Spamhaus, however.
>> I beg your pardon. ;) Here are the default RBLs as installed by QTP:
>> check-dnsrbl=zen.spamhaus.org
>> check-dnsrbl=bl.spamcop.net
>> check-dnsrbl=list.dsbl.org
>>
>>> If you are using spamdyke version 3.1.x, edit the configuration file
>>> /etc/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf and add the following line:
>>>    check-dnsrbl=zen.spamhaus.org
>>>
>>> If you are using spamdyke version 4.x, edit the configuration file
>>> /etc/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf and add the following line:
>>>    dns-blacklist-entry=zen.spamhaus.org
>>>
>>> To add multiple DNS RBLs, simply repeat the line with different values.
>>>
>>> -- Sam Clippinger
>> QTP only installs/upgrades spamdyke 3.1.x at this time. I hope to add 4.x
>> capability soon. It'll likely be a couple weeks before I get to it though.
>>
>>> Anil Aliyan wrote:
>>>> pretty smart question John, I also would like to hear the answer for
>>>> it from the experts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tek Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: <qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 8:37 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Authentication to bypass spam checks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all, I have a few question.  Before I learned of this port 587, my
>>>>> only option was to disable spamhaus.  And all I did to disable it was
>>>>> to remove it from my "/var/qmail/control/blacklists file.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the other day I needed some addition reporting and I remembered
>>>>> the "toaster plus", so I downloaded the Repo and ran the yum install
>>>>> for it.  I then also decided to run the spamdyke filter.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, now that I've realized that port 587 is available for my users to
>>>>> send on, I went back to add the spamhaus.  However, it's no longer in
>>>>> the /var/qmail/supervise/smtp/run file.  It would appear that spamdyke
>>>>> has removed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I have 2 questions:
>>>>> 1) Are spamdyke and spamhaus compatible?  Why would or why does
>>>>> spamdyke remove "blacklist" from the run file.  Here are the before
>>>>> and after.
>>>>> ---Begin---
>>>>>
>>>>> ---End---
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Since I've just found out that port 587 is available, and 587 does
>>>>> not run spamhaus the dynamic ip checker, then what is keeping a
>>>>> spammer from trying to use this 587?  I mean I'm a little confused.
>>>>> If my port 25 won't allow any non-authenticated users to send smtp
>>>>> (presuming it's not an open relay), then why would I even need port
>>>>> 587?  I understand the need to have 587 if I'm using spamhaus on port
>>>>> 25, and 25 is now blocked to my dynamic users (workers from home).  So
>>>>> it seems a bit unnecessary to have both ports.  And why couldn't a
>>>>> spammer start sending spam to my users on 587 - if it even works that
>>>>> way, which I'm not sure yet if it can?  Qmailtoaster is a pretty
>>>>> popular thing, so someone, somewhere would certainly try port 587 in
>>>>> order to get around spamhaus wouldn't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your time on this, I'm not trying to be difficult, only
>>>>> trying to understand how and why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> -Eric 'shubes'
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>      QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [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]

Reply via email to