On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:35, W.D.McKinney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
It's just a pity that hotmail and yahoo have so many users that it's
inconvenient to block them entirely.
No worries, this list is about Debian and
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 19:06 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:35, W.D.McKinney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
It's just a pity that hotmail and yahoo have so many users that it's
inconvenient to
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 19:18, W.D.McKinney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Qmail is not in Debian. Even the qmail-src package is no longer in
Debian. This makes it significantly more difficult to manage Qmail Debian
servers.
Well if you don't like compiling from src, then head to
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 09:55, Michael Loftis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very well.
I don't mind handling the extra retry traffic if it means legitimate mail
on a 'grey/pink' host is just temporarily rejected or delayed while
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 07:51:13PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 09:55, Michael Loftis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very
well. I don't mind handling the extra retry traffic if it means
legitimate mail
Hi All
I have been asked to advise on the installation of Debian on a new Dell
server.
The client is keen on a PowerEdge 2800. From their spec this has a
PERC4 SCSI raid controller on board.
From what I can see PERC3 used an Adaptec chipset which is well
supported in the latest kernels. Does
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Ian Forbes wrote:
Hi All
Look here:
http://wiki.osuosl.org/display/LNX/Debian+on+Dell+Servers
and here:
http://linux.dell.com/
--
Emmanuel Lacour Easter-eggs
44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France -
Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 09:34 +0100 Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Various AOL mailservers, the Debian mailservers, and other servers
sending out lots of regular mail get listed in spamcop regularly, so my
recommendation (and that of
--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:32 +0100 daniele becchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if i would have used rbl checks in postfix instead of spamassim i would
never receive that mail, right?
the tracked ip is of course 217.226.195.186 and not the yahoo ip
216.109.118.120.
Or i didn't
Greetings!
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:25:05 +1100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you ignore really stupid annoyances like the fact that it can't
reject a message at the SMTP level, it *always* accepts and then
bounces it.
Current mailstats on my private server (postfix) tell me:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:32, daniele becchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Odd, since we don't see this. And when it does happen to 'big' mail
senders it's never AOL for one (they're on the whitelist). And it's
totally automatic so if they do end up on it's usually for less than a
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:16, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig, why do you think it's undesirable to do so?
because i dont want the extra retry traffic. i want spammers to take FOAD
as an answer, and i dont want to welcome them with a pleasant please try
again later
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:00:42AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:16, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig, why do you think it's undesirable to do so?
because i dont want the extra retry traffic. i want spammers to take FOAD
as an answer, and i
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 15:00, Russell Coker wrote:
I agree that we don't want to be nice to spammers. But there is also
the issue of being nice in the case of false-positives.
I think, that a permanent error is the best response for a
false-positive.
The sender will then receive a
Hello,
the company I am working for is currently looking for Debian-friendly
hosting (colocation) companies operating in China, Indonesia and India,
more specifically in Beijing, Guangzhou, Jakarta and Mumbai. These can
be different companies, of course. The important points are:
-
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 15:30 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
opm.blitzed.org
But now I have removed all exept the first two. spamhaus
catchs more then 50% of my spams and abuseat around 10%.
The rest is done by Blacklists and spamassassin.
Spamhaus XBL
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 23:56 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
Yahoo server IP address space should not be in a dialup class. If that
happens then notify the person maintaining the dialup-list that you use that
they have an inaccuracy.
This is incorrect when you look at the headers.
Received:
--On Thursday, December 09, 2004 01:12 +1100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
if it's a false positive, the sender will get a bounce from their MTA and
they can fix the problem or route around it. IMO, that's far nicer to
legit senders than them not knowing that their mail isn't being
--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 16:04 +0200 Ian Forbes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 15:00, Russell Coker wrote:
I agree that we don't want to be nice to spammers. But there is also
the issue of being nice in the case of false-positives.
I think, that a permanent
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 07:41:12PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
Received: from [217.226.195.183] by web60309.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon,
29 Nov 2004 19:12:36 CET Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
SpamAssassin looks at all the headers. If this is a good choice or not
is
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Thursday, December 09, 2004 01:12 +1100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
wrote:
if it's a false positive, the sender will get a bounce from their MTA and
they can fix the problem or route around it. IMO, that's far nicer
Thanks alot I now have MailScanner scanning all my messages :). How ever I
have one minor(?) problem, sendmail movers messages to the mqueue.in ,
MailScanner scans them and moves them to the /mqueue like it should,...
but the messages just sit there. Do I now need to change procmail?
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
from client IPs that commit various spammish-looking crimes against my
system.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
from client
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
i also wrote
25 matches
Mail list logo
