I tried your config, but without editing something in the main.cf like
content_filter=amavis this won´t work, this means mail is delivered
without filtering. So far, so good. If i add something like
content_filter=amavis:10024 every check is passed and at the end, the
spamfilter.sh scripts sends th
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:58:34 -0500, Andy wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You could always tell him that he's just handing his new email address
> out to all the spambots testing his old one. That might scare him
> enough to turn the damn thing off.
..or, this could be an opportunity for
Le sam 19/06/2004 à 01:29, Aaron Goulding a écrit :
> Okay, there's a lot of talk on -user about spam control, and I'd like to
> make sure my own server is properly secured. Could anyone recomend basic
> steps for Debian STABLE running Postfix for the MTA, to make sure it's not
> being used as a
I tried your config, but without editing something in the main.cf like
content_filter=amavis this won´t work, this means mail is delivered
without filtering. So far, so good. If i add something like
content_filter=amavis:10024 every check is passed and at the end, the
spamfilter.sh scripts sends th
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:58:34 -0500, Andy wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You could always tell him that he's just handing his new email address
> out to all the spambots testing his old one. That might scare him
> enough to turn the damn thing off.
..or, this could be an opportunity for
Le sam 19/06/2004 à 01:29, Aaron Goulding a écrit :
> Okay, there's a lot of talk on -user about spam control, and I'd like to
> make sure my own server is properly secured. Could anyone recomend basic
> steps for Debian STABLE running Postfix for the MTA, to make sure it's not
> being used as a
Okay, so at suggestions, I ran the relay tester at abuse.net and passed all
15 tests. I get entries like this in my logs:
Jun 18 20:05:59 mephitsune postfix/smtpd[8791]: reject: RCPT from
www.abuse.net[208.31.42.77]: 554
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Relay access denied;
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[E
Okay, so at suggestions, I ran the relay tester at abuse.net and passed all
15 tests. I get entries like this in my logs:
Jun 18 20:05:59 mephitsune postfix/smtpd[8791]: reject: RCPT from
www.abuse.net[208.31.42.77]: 554
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Relay access denied;
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[E
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:54:55 +1000:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:04, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> > > postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org an
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:04, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> > By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> > postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and abuse.rfc-ignorant.org. The
>
> That's because rfc-ignorant.org's lists aren't a
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:54:55 +1000:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:04, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> > > postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org an
On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and abuse.rfc-ignorant.org. The
That's because rfc-ignorant.org's lists aren't about spamming. They are
about domains that fail to conform to certain R
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:04, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> > By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> > postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and abuse.rfc-ignorant.org. The
>
> That's because rfc-ignorant.org's lists aren't a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Francisco Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've used (through notespam) for my own private email, the following
> lists:
> Visi (relays.visi.com);
> ORDB (relays.ordb.org);
> SpamCop (bl.spamcop.net);
> dorkslayers (orbs.dorkslayers.com).
Spamcop
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You have lied as far as my winnings I have given what I was supposed to and
> that information is crucial to my identity..I was sent an email that I won
> at my other email address that NOONE knew..I didnt believe it was a hoax..
> I believed it
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:29, Francisco Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SpamCop works fine for my own email, where most people are whitelisted,
> but is said [1] not to be suitable for a production environment and what
> we have here is precisely that...
I know of some ISPs that use SpamCop. It
On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and abuse.rfc-ignorant.org. The
That's because rfc-ignorant.org's lists aren't about spamming. They are
about domains that fail to conform to certain R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Francisco Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've used (through notespam) for my own private email, the following
> lists:
> Visi (relays.visi.com);
> ORDB (relays.ordb.org);
> SpamCop (bl.spamcop.net);
> dorkslayers (orbs.dorkslayers.com).
Spamcop
18 matches
Mail list logo
