On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 20:10 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> If Courier had been using IPv4 APIs for the IPv4 stack, then it would
> be natural to skip the :::, but as I understand Sam, Courier is
> using the IPv6 APIs also for IPv4.
At one point I was building Courier regularly from source and
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:14 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> Usually, though, you _could_ block by ASN instead of /xx, as some VPS
> and colo providers out there don't have a functional anti-spam policy.
I do more or less this manually using a utility I wrote which manages a
file in /etc/courier/sm
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Sam Varshavchik
wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > 3: Patch doesn't support IPv6. Which reminds me that I need to write
>> > some code to fix other IPv6 handling deficiencies with smtpaccess.
>>
>> That's very true. A couple of points on this, as regards ra
On 03/14/2015 10:33 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I would guess that it's a /64 address group, but
> that's only a guess.
IPv6 /48 is the standard allocation for a site, which is probably the
best analog to the IPv4 /24.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Lindsay Haisley
wrote:
> Spamming engines using IPv4 addresses frequently cycle through IP
> addresses in order to defeat rate limiting filters. These are all
> generally within the same /24 block.
We've seen variations in size between /30 and /16 for IPv4, but
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 13:12 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> 2: Using regex to deal with addresses is kinda gross.
>
> 3: Patch doesn't support IPv6. Which reminds me that I need to write
> some code to fix other IPv6 handling deficiencies with smtpaccess.
I can use courier.control.getSendersIP()
Spamming engines using IPv4 addresses frequently cycle through IP
addresses in order to defeat rate limiting filters. These are all
generally within the same /24 block. What's the equivalent invariant
network part generally seen in IPv6 addressed spam? Generally address
providers will give out a
