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]
