Re: opensuse repo for working current stable/experimental postifx?
On 09/27/2012 12:17 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: looks like 2.8.12 ist latest on http://software.opensuse.org Thanks but it looks like it's not available for me. jd --
opensuse repo for working current stable/experimental postifx?
Searching for opensuse builds of the latest/current stable and experimental releases of postfix. No luck. Seems as if everyone and his dog has some postfix project. All of them seem to be unmaintained, abandoned, obsoleted, broken, incomplete or not current. Does anyone know where there is a valid repository of working current stable and/or experimental versions for opensuse? One that is kept current and up to date? Thanks, jd --
Re: Transport table gone ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Noel Jones さんは書きました: On 3/6/2010 8:29 AM, Xavier HUMBERT wrote: Hello, I make rather heavy use of transport_maps as explained in http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps and in the transport(5) section of the man pages. Today I upgraded my dozen of servers to Postix 2.7 under FreeBSD 7.3, and got the waring below : Note: the following files or directories still exist but are no longer part of Postfix: /usr/local/etc/postfix/transport Nevertheless, I carefully read the 2.7 Release announcment, there's no mention of such a suppression. Does it mean that I *must* use another routing mechanism ? Thanks, That's just a note that the sample file is no longer supplied by postfix. You're still free to use that name, or any other valid filename, for your local transport table. Perhaps that could be reworded to make it clear? As it is it does seem to mean that the transport table file is no longer supported. it is not ambiguous. == jd Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLlQq2hpL3F+HeDrIRAor+AKCOJ9Y0P2yP6e6hxZebZFK9OZ933gCeM7r3 +3jiXMteYl2HzOsvw02UGw0= =osKD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: suitable webmail
it seems that roundcube is popular. It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube directories. I'd probably see orders of magnitude more if it weren't for fail2ban. I wonder what it is that makes it so popular? -- jd ==
Re: suitable webmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 mouss さんは書きました: you mean things like GET /roundcube-0.2//bin/msgimport GET /round//bin/msgimport Not lately. Most recently, they're looking for version info: GET /rc/README GET /webmail/README GET /roundcube/README GET /rcube/README . . . GET /roundcubemail/README GET /roundcube/CHANGELOG etc. and not so recently: GET /webmail/program/js/list.js GET /roundcube/program/js/list.js etc. Some of the same IPs also probe port 25, connecting then disconnecting w/o talking to the server. I don't think they like Postfix. == jd -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLZ1bChpL3F+HeDrIRAkCAAJ9HG9o4eI04VGV7lZF8Wp1kuN/MiACgg0qB +W64ICtOaIlcIovhHAre/ds= =hkCP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Backscatter email
Matt Richards さんは書きました: Hello, I just want to check up on something ... I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with forged from addresses. Today I still run my own mail server but I don't see any of this backscatter anymore, not that I'm complaining but I just wondered why? Interesting that you are seeing bounce messages. Unless they are from your own server. I haven't seen any in the very recent past. I think the last one I received was in June, from a qmail server. The last round of backscatter was from servers bouncing variations of my addresses altered for the target domains and virtually all were qmail servers. Perhaps qmail defaults to accept all mail then bounce have changed lately and getting listed on rfc-ignorant, etc., has got the mail admins' attention. I would suppose it sucks a little when outgoing mail can't be delivered because of being a backscatterer. Spammers are still trying to send mail to variations of whatever they use as a From: address but they are being blocked. -- jd
Re: SuSE repository - old postfix ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Grüner さんは書きました: | Hello, | | I am installing a new server with SuSE Linux Enterprise SP2 and want to | use the SuSE mail repository. | | http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/server:/mail/SLE_10/x86_64/?C=M;O=D | | | They offer a postfix24-2.4.5-1.1.x86_64.rpm which seems to be quite old | from August 2007 and even unsecure (?). | | http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/server:/mail/SLE_10/repodata/repoview/postfix24-0-2.4.5-1.1.html | | | Is there a better rpm source available ? (Yes, I might compile it by | myself...) Or is this the right release for a productive environment ? | There is a SuSE build service for Postfix. I can't check it at the moment but it sould be in the list of community repositories. It is usually a little closer to the current stable release than the other repositories. I started building Postfix from the latest release source on the main Postfix site and there have been no dependency problems. Just be sure to have SuSE's postfix installed so the deps are met and build with the correct options. The only problem doing it this way is that any update packages will overwrite your own build, so you must set postfix as protected in yast/yum/whatever so it will not update. This is unreliable so be sure to check the list of updates to be done. This means you can't use auto-update, which is probably not a good idea to use anyway. == ~ jd - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJPTSihpL3F+HeDrIRAnIvAJwOt/bLrLKIrHG1hYZeSYGoVIhK+gCdF+y7 SJpSEXEb81/7nSZR0YQgBfI= =1mvU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Finally blocking some spam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joey さんは書きました: ~ SNIP! | | Any suggestions you have to help me reduce the load on the servers, | and the junk in the mailbox are welcome, and I can assure you I | will try just about anything as you can see by my blanketed IP | method which for reference has reduced spam by over 75%, and yes | blocked a few legit users. | | Joey | | I've read more of the messages subsequent to the one I replied to. I see that you have been pretty frustrated by the problem. I honestly can't see how you can do better with what you have. So perhaps it would help to do something different. Farming out your MX to a MX service with spam filtering will reduce the load on your servers. It isn't cheap, though. But is it saves you time and transfers the spam blocking duty to the service. This may be the best solution as it saves you time, traffic load and aggro. Fail2ban can be used with a blocklist by adding rules that block IP's when a blocklist returns a spam result. A dedicated firewall will take the load off your MX servers. If the IP is the target and not your domain, which does not seem to be the case, a VPS or dedicated server set up as your MX will help. In the case of dedicated servers, it's again not cheap. If your domain is the target I would be curious as to why. What makes it so attractive? Or is it a DOS, harrassment, or what? Did someone offend some spammer somehow? Perhaps the blocking method triggered a more concentrated effort on their part? Do you block connections by resetting them or by dropping them? Sending reset only results in more persistent connection attempts. Dropping connections tends to cause hosts to give up trying after a short time. If they are concentrating on you because of your blocking policy, it may help to let some connections succeed and deliver the known spam to the bit bucket instead of users. Spammers don't care whether or not you read their spam--it's the delivery that counts and pays for them. I suspect that spammers may be concentrating on your domain because you are blocking so much. If you allow most connections and drop the spammers using various rules from blocklists, SPF, DKIM and so on, the number of connections attempts will probably decrease. If you can't handle the tens of thousands of connections per hour, hire an MX service for a while until the traffic goes down, which it hopefully will. I can see no way of totally eliminating spam traffic, except at the source, with a Special Force. :) It's not going to be possible to 100% eliminate spam and only spam any other way. == ~ jd -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFI+2XXhpL3F+HeDrIRAtUXAJ9L5KOcCntiI/rc3D3Wi1Ma5bELeQCfepFN uUMtLz9bDiWmm61xj554m6A= =WKkY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
