Alex:
One *very* convincing argument not to send an *email* response (reject at SMTP
is fine) is that it is very likely indeed you'll end up on an RBL yourself for
doing this. It happened to us when we were still bouncing (probably about
8-10 years ago). It was the main reason we stopped.
Reindl:
that's no problem because with RBL weighting and postscreen you reject 95% of
the crap before it ever touchs smtpd or even the contentfilter that stats
below are about a maillog starting with Sep 18 19:50:39
for some hundrest domains and currently 2000 valid RCPT, if the contentfilter
Joseph Tam writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this regexp pattern
what you want? Unless Postfix
Am 27.09.2014 um 12:01 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
Reindl:
that's no problem because with RBL weighting and postscreen you reject 95%
of the crap before it ever touchs smtpd or even the contentfilter that stats
below are about a maillog starting with Sep 18 19:50:39
for some hundrest
On 27/09/14 11:49, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Joseph Tam writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this
...could you advise if it is actually possible to use both before-queue and
after-queue filtering?
Reindl
surely but how does that make sense?
It makes because it will use two filters, not just one. It will filter before
queue first and then anything that may be missed or let through on
Am 27.09.2014 um 15:04 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
...could you advise if it is actually possible to use both before-queue and
after-queue filtering?
Reindl
surely but how does that make sense?
It makes because it will use two filters, not just one.
It will filter before queue
Alex:
if it was
^From:.*\@.*\.tw$
it would not.
$ is optional and it only means the end of expression, the rule works either
with or without it in the problem I was trying to solve.
And again according to the man page, $ is usable:
/^(.*)-outgoing@(.*)$/
This is again an option ($), not a
Am 27.09.2014 um 12:49 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
Joseph Tam writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having,
Am 27.09.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
Alex:
if it was
^From:.*\@.*\.tw$
it would not.
$ is optional and it only means the end of expression, the rule works either
with or without it in the problem I was trying to solve.
And again according to the man page, $ is
Wasnt that productive?
I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I
doubt it.
Also felt like he was testing us, posting regexes for us to look at and
then when we pointed out the errors in them suddenly declaring they were
deliberate errors for testing!
Alex
On
Am 27.09.2014 um 15:34 schrieb Alex Crow:
Wasnt that productive?
i would call it funny :-)
I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I doubt it
forget it
Also felt like he was testing us, posting regexes for us to look
at and then when we pointed out the errors
Hello List,
I tried to subscribe but it's taking forever for the confirmation email to
arrive so I thought I would ask away by emailing directly. My apologies in
advance should this question appear twice.
It may seem real simple to experts but I cannot really figure it out. I'll try
to be
That would most likely be something in your header_checks that is
causing the bounce from Sieve to be rejected.
There is no reason why you cannot use both.
On 26/09/14 12:35, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Hello List,
I tried to subscribe but it's taking forever for the confirmation email to
that
could possibly be the cause of your suggestion?
From: Alex Crow
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 14:47
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve and Postfix header_checks Issue
That would most likely be something in your header_checks that is
causing the bounce from Sieve
... Any more ideas
anyone? Alex? Many thanks in advance for any input!
From: Klaipedaville on Google
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 15:00
To: Alex Crow ; dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve and Postfix header_checks Issue
Thank you for your suggestion, Alex.
However, my
On 26/09/14 14:10, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Hey! You are right Alex! Many thanks for pointing me to head over to
the right direction!
It was a clash on rules for some reason. Now, I was also right that
these two systems could not be used together because the rules
declared in different
/^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
/^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
/\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spamming
hullababballos allowed.
I think it may be this one above. From the postfix manualsBy
On 26/09/14 15:27, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
/^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
/^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
/\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spamming
hullababballos allowed.
I think it may be
On 9/26/2014 9:27 AM, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
/^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
/^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
/\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spamming
hullababballos allowed.
I think it
So why does it state in man 5 regexp_table that such tables are *case
insensitive* by default and the /i actually toggles that? Are you saying that
man page is wrong? I'd be surprised as I don't think I've yet come
across an occasion where postfix man pages are incorrect!
I am not saying that
Not true. Postfix regexp (and pcre) matches are case insensitive by default,
adding the /i flag makes them case sensitive. This should be quite clear in
the postfix docs quoted above. This documented
default behavior may be different from other software you're familiar with.
You're welcome
On 26/09/14 16:00, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
So why does it state in man 5 regexp_table that such tables are *case
insensitive* by default and the /i actually toggles that? Are you
saying that man page is wrong? I'd be surprised as I don't think I've
yet come
across an occasion where
Am 26.09.2014 um 16:49 schrieb Alex Crow:
On 26/09/14 15:27, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
/^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
/^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
/\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No
I realise it's probably because of the use of the reject action, which
presumably inserts the text No spamming allowed here. into the subject of
the bounce.
However what also concerns me is that sending MDN's back to the envelope
sender of SPAM messages is very likely to cause your server to
Am 26.09.2014 um 17:44 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
There are countries for example Germany where it is prohibited by law to
discard
any email messages silently. You must reject them so that the senders would
be
aware what is going on. I was told that by one German admin. I am not
it is true and besides the german legal letter below you violate a second law
at the same time - that is why you have to run a spamfilter *before queue* and
sa-milter exists - in case you reject a message
the sending server is responsible for a bounce
in case you accept and silently drop it you
On 26/09/14 16:44, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Whatever's the case the backscatter you're talking about has its own
ways and methods to be fought with. There are countries for example
Germany where it is prohibited by law to discard any email messages
silently. You must reject them so
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:18 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
it is true and besides the german legal letter below you violate a second
law at the same time - that is why you have to run a spamfilter *before
queue* and sa-milter exists - in case you reject a message
the sending server is
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:29 schrieb Alex Crow:
Reindl,
I respecfully disagree with (a) at least for the UK. It may be the case in
Germany but I'll be damned if I'm going
to give up on my Mailscanner - tuned over the years enough that we've never
had a legit mail get canned.
I respecfully
Klaipedaville on Google klaipedavi...@gmail.com writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this regexp
31 matches
Mail list logo
