On 5/7/22 1:55 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I used to greylist and it helped a lot.
I used to use grey listing too. I've found no listing to be equally
effective.
2FA killed that, however. When someone logs into a website, bank,
etc quite often they use an email address as the second facto
On 2022-05-07 09:55, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Once 2FA became a big deal for the banks I got far too many user
complaints on the greylisting to keep it.
2fa should NOT be done on email
idiotic banks :)
On 2022-05-07 02:39, Greg Troxel wrote:
I agree with what Grant said.
Also, I wonder how much greylisting would help, and if you were already
doing that. The data I posted is for a machine that already does
greylisting in general, with varying times depending on inclusion in
various RBLs and lo
I used to greylist and it helped a lot.
2FA killed that, however. When someone logs into a website, bank, etc
quite often they use an email address as the second factor - so for that
to work the email has to be delivered instantaneously. Also most 2FA
does not follow any kind of SMTP standard
On 6/5/22 6:31 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
For unrelated reasons I had to turn off IPv6 on my incoming mailserver.
Spam plummeted. Like by 80% at least. Both uncaught and caught spam
did.
Were there more hostname variations with records than A records?
--
Jeremy
OpenPGP_signatu
I agree with what Grant said.
Also, I wonder how much greylisting would help, and if you were already
doing that. The data I posted is for a machine that already does
greylisting in general, with varying times depending on inclusion in
various RBLs and local data.
I find that delaying connectio
On 5/6/22 10:49 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Arg. Well I think you hit the nail on the head. And I think I may
have stumbled on to a spam defeating trick.
Ya ... not running email server on IPv6 is a way of not receiving (some)
spam. But I view it very similarly as not running an email serve
Arg. Well I think you hit the nail on the head. And I think I may have
stumbled on to a spam defeating trick. Here's what I think MAY be going on.
As we all know spammers are the textbook drive by shooters. They are
going to try the first A returned from the mailserver just like a
regular m
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> For unrelated reasons I had to turn off IPv6 on my incoming mailserver.
>
> Spam plummeted. Like by 80% at least. Both uncaught and caught spam did.
>
> When IPv6 was on, the mailserver had all PTR and and MX records to
> allow it to receive incoming mail via IP
Hi All,
I hope this does not start a holy war.
For unrelated reasons I had to turn off IPv6 on my incoming mailserver.
Spam plummeted. Like by 80% at least. Both uncaught and caught spam did.
When IPv6 was on, the mailserver had all PTR and and MX records to
allow it to receive incoming
10 matches
Mail list logo
