On Saturday 29 May 2010 18.25:49 PMC OS wrote:
> I do not know, because the current "MX 20" is receiving several 1000 spams
> per day which has never hit "MX10" before which is what I have read on
> many Forums/Malinglists that Spamers sending spam to the lowest MX instead
> the real mail server
On 5/28/2010 1:23 AM, Mick wrote:
> Is there anywhere that CLEARLY documents these sorts of things for
> people who don't spend their working lives setting up mail servers.
>
> I spent a day googling before I started and didn't find anything not
> full of archane jargon.
>
>
I think it's just t
Hello Dan,
> dmj.nu MX 5 mail.dmj.nu.
> dmj.nu MX 10 collection.skandicinkasso.de.
> dmj.nu MX 20 mail.dmj.nu.
I read this too on a Webforum, but I dubt this could have an impact on
RFC-things
Is this "legal" ?
Thanks
PMCOS Team
freenetMail - Der zuverl�ssige E-Mail-Dienst von freenet.de
Hello Alessandro
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> It is better to have a caching DNS almost dedicated to mail-related
> lookups, on the same or a nearby machine. You'll also use it for
> caching DNSBL replies (configure at least spamhaus.)
This is already done we have our own bind9 r
PMC OS writes:
If you have decent connections, you are probably better off without
backup MXes, except for exceptional magnetic storms, e.g. the
Carrington Event, that may result in network failures spread around
the globe.
Our mails are to important as going without Backup-MX
On the modern
Hi Sam,
>
> The only other situation where a backup MX is of any value
> is when there's a separate connection between the backup MX
> and the primary MX, and your primary MX's Internet
> connection is unstable. If the connection goes down, but the
> primary MX stays up, mail will flow through t
PMC OS writes:
Hello Dan,
dmj.nu MX 5 mail.dmj.nu.
dmj.nu MX 10 collection.skandicinkasso.de.
dmj.nu MX 20 mail.dmj.nu.
I read this too on a Webforum, but I dubt this could have an impact on
RFC-things
Is this "legal" ?
I can't think of any reason why this isn't "legal".
However, it's
Hello *,
I use
BLACKLIST="-block=zen.spamhaus.org,BLOCK"
and it works well with arround 23.000 rejects per day byside of more
then 140.000 "Unknown User" (mainly "jfc53") but unfortunately this is
not enough...
Which USEFULL other servers/rbls can I add too?
Oh, how big can the /etc/
Michelle Konzack writes:
Oh, how big can the /etc/courier/bofh be without killing the performance
of courier? I am currently blocking 1700 domains and maybe around 800
individuals...
The limiting factors is your disk I/O performance and your CPU. The more
overall volume of mail you're proc
Download: http://www.courier-mta.org/download.php
Fixes (since 0.64.2):
• Several issues with gpg 2 have been fixed.
• When compiled with GnuTLS, fix incorrect usage of
gnutls_server_name_set(), preventing connections to servers that use
OpenSSL.
• Mailbot was leaving file descriptors open
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:33:56 +0200
Markus Ewald wrote:
> On 5/28/2010 1:23 AM, Mick wrote:
> > Is there anywhere that CLEARLY documents these sorts of things for
> > people who don't spend their working lives setting up mail servers.
> >
> > I spent a day googling before I started and didn't find
> -Original Message-
> From: Mick [mailto:bare...@tpg.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:13 PM
> > > I spent a day googling before I started and didn't find
> > > anything not full of archane jargon.
> > >
> > >
> > I think it's just the Unix way of doing things - first, know wha
On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:47:29 -0700
"Malcolm Weir" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mick [mailto:bare...@tpg.com.au]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:13 PM
>
> > > > I spent a day googling before I started and didn't find
> > > > anything not full of archane jargon.
> > > >
> > >
> -Original Message-
> From: Mick [mailto:bare...@tpg.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:11 PM
[ snip ]
> I definitely am not singling out courier with my grumbles,its
> simply a matter of this being the only package I have
> received real comment, maybe I'm more terse than I inte
14 matches
Mail list logo
