On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 11:56:57PM +0200, Marco Wessel said:
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> >
> > It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> > changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> > million-spam run, and they have t
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Dr. Scott S. Jones wrote:
> I divide my time between office and home, and would like to be able to
> access my inbox, whether at home, or at work, I run exim4 and keep my
> mailbox on my office machine. I have cable at both locations.
>
> How would I set things up so that wh
I divide my time between office and home, and would like to be able to
access my inbox, whether at home, or at work, I run exim4 and keep my
mailbox on my office machine. I have cable at both locations.
How would I set things up so that when I run mutt, I access my work mail
box, whether at home
On 06/07/2007 11:33, Jethro R Binks wrote:
[...]
> It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> million-spam run, and they have to deal with the callouts ...
It's probably still better than dealing wit
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Jethro R Binks wrote:
>
> It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> million-spam run, and they have to deal with the callouts ...
I can imagine this happening to those who
Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that?
--
patrick
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
Outside windows apache, it works in cygwin bash. I can send mail. I do not want
to receieve mail. So I did not bother.
But in windows, I have to send a exim.bat file which points to exim4.67.exe.
Same bat file thing, under cgi-bin (apache setup) does work by prompting for
run, save, cancel!
Bu
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, John Burnham wrote:
>
> Can someone kill this thread before it degenerates please ?
> John
If only Marc spent as much time reading the documentation as he does
writing :)
J.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computi
Can someone kill this thread before it degenerates please ?
John
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Asking a question here is sort of like this example where I will
> substitute asking directions to make a point.
I am not a moderator, but can we please stop this OT thread.
--
Philip HazelUniversity of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Ex
OK, enough.
Please keep things Exim related. It keeps my blood pressure down!
Graeme
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
Asking a question here is sort of like this example where I will
substitute asking directions to make a point.
Q. Excuse me, can you give me directions to the Tech Museum in San Jose?
A. You don't want to go there. The Exploratorium in San Francisco is
much better.
Q. But I'm meeting a group o
I for one would have to disagree. I personally feel that this list is one
of the more helpful that I've been involved with. Occasionally some harsh
truths are told, but nothing that isn't ultimately a bit of constructive
criticism and the recipient is rarely left without a definitive answer.
Peo
Marc Perkel wrote:
> There are a lot of arrogant people on this list that like to hassle
> people with legitimate questions. If someone wants to know how to
> do something then they want to know how to do it. If people don't
> have the answer they shouldn't respond with "you don't want to know
> th
Graeme Fowler wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 13:57 +0200, Marcin Krol wrote:
>
>
> Second moderator request: this thread, unless it comes back to the
> mechanics of how the OP can change his configuration, is dead.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
Are you really a moderator?
--
## List d
- Original Message -
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Exim Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: [exim] Don't be rude to people asking questions
> Don't apologize. There are a lot of arrogant people on this list tha
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 07:15:20AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/specs/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt
>
> I'm still wondering what I would have to do to turn a message into an
> attachment and create attachments that would comply with this spec. A
> few days
On 06/07/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Graeme Fowler wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 13:57 +0200, Marcin Krol wrote:
> >
> >
> > Second moderator request: this thread, unless it comes back to the
> > mechanics of how the OP can change his configuration, is dead.
> >
> > Many th
Marc Sherman wrote:
> [I changed the subject because this is not a continuation of the part of
> the thread that was getting acrimonious]
>
> Jeremy Harris wrote:
>> Without knowing for sure what mails are spam and what are ham,
>> we reject connections:
>>10% rdns + 2mx
>>35% helo
>>
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Toralf Lund wrote:
> I primarily had $acl_ variables in mind. "strict_acl_vars" is a fairly
> new option, isn't it?
4.64.
--
Philip HazelUniversity of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book:http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
--
## List details at htt
Toralf Lund wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wearing my moderator's hat, can I please ask that we don't discuss this
>> particular subject any further?
>>
>> The topic of whether or not sender callouts to arbitrary senders are
>> good or evil has been done to death several times on this list. [ ... ]
>>
>>
Jethro R Binks wrote:
> But the cost is borne by those sender domains, requiring resources to
> deal with your callout.
>
The cost is minimal compared to the benefit. I get a lot of customers
whose domains had been spoofed and when they move to my filtering
service which is verify friendly
On 06/07/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've started sending out automated abuse reports for spam and viruses
> and one person pointed out that there is a standard being developed for
> automated abuse.
>
> http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/specs/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt
>
I've started sending out automated abuse reports for spam and viruses
and one person pointed out that there is a standard being developed for
automated abuse.
http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/specs/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt
I'm still wondering what I would have to do to turn a messag
Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Toralf Lund wrote:
>
>
>> What do I get if I do something like
>>
>> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>>
>> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
>>
>
> It depends on the variable. In the case of $acl_ variables it also
> depends on whether you hav
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Toralf Lund wrote:
> What do I get if I do something like
>
> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>
> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
It depends on the variable. In the case of $acl_ variables it also
depends on whether you have set strict_acl_vars or not. Many variables
Quoting Toralf Lund:
> What do I get if I do something like
>
> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>
> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
An undefined variable expands to nothing (except for acl_m/acl_c
variables, if you have the strict_acl_vars option set), so this is the
same as ${eval:+1},
[I changed the subject because this is not a continuation of the part of
the thread that was getting acrimonious]
Jeremy Harris wrote:
>
> Without knowing for sure what mails are spam and what are ham,
> we reject connections:
>10% rdns + 2mx
>35% helo
>5% dnsbl
>20% conn-droppe
>
>>> What do I get if I do something like
>>>
>>> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>>>
>>> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
>>>
>> Looks like it treats some_variable as 0:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# /usr/sbin/exim -be
>> > ${eval:$acl_m9+1}
>> 1
>> >
>>
>
> Hmmm. More accura
Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> What do I get if I do something like
>>
>> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>>
>> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
>
> Looks like it treats some_variable as 0:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# /usr/sbin/exim -be
> > ${eval:$acl_m9+1}
> 1
> >
Hmmm. More accurately, it expa
Toralf Lund wrote:
> What do I get if I do something like
>
> ${eval:$some_variable+1}
>
> when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
Looks like it treats some_variable as 0:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# /usr/sbin/exim -be
> ${eval:$acl_m9+1}
1
>
Mike
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/
What do I get if I do something like
${eval:$some_variable+1}
when "some_variable" is not actually defined?
- Toralf
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximw
Marcin Krol wrote:
>> and would block only a tiny %age of spam.
>
> This may be so, but I would like to see some realistic numbers and
> experiments to show that. My own (admittedly, quick) estimates based on
> my mail logs indicate that the volume of spam cut short by callouts is
> approx. 5/6
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 13:57 +0200, Marcin Krol wrote:
Second moderator request: this thread, unless it comes back to the
mechanics of how the OP can change his configuration, is dead.
Many thanks.
Graeme
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details a
Phil (Medway Hosting) napisał(a):
>> I tend to consider them as a way of reducing spam, and everything that
>> does is for the Greater Good, IMO. Also, I'm quite happy to receive this
>> kind of requests at our server, so I'll happily use them myself -
>> according to some principle we read in some
>
>
> Wearing my moderator's hat, can I please ask that we don't discuss this
> particular subject any further?
>
> The topic of whether or not sender callouts to arbitrary senders are
> good or evil has been done to death several times on this list. [ ... ]
>
Yes. You are absolutely right. So
Jethro R Binks napisał(a):
> I am somewhat near the fence on this issue, so I err on the side of
> caution and do not do callouts to arbitrary domains. I can see both
> points of view: I can see the value of callouts and the benefits to the
> would-be recipient, but I also see the damage that
Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exim Mailing List"
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [exim] Sender callout verification with warning only
>
>
>
>>> Do you realise that callouts are considered abusi
Wearing my moderator's hat, can I please ask that we don't discuss this
particular subject any further?
The topic of whether or not sender callouts to arbitrary senders are
good or evil has been done to death several times on this list.
Those who are long-time subscribers have seen both sides o
Phil (Medway Hosting) napisał(a):
> Do you realise that callouts are considered abusive in anti-spam circles and
> are often used in certain forms of ddos attacks ?
Using "collateral callout" for DDOS to attack host B seems kind of
pointless, because the attacker is sending spam to the host A that
I am somewhat near the fence on this issue, so I err on the side of
caution and do not do callouts to arbitrary domains. I can see both
points of view: I can see the value of callouts and the benefits to the
would-be recipient, but I also see the damage that can be done to the
sender domain wh
- Original Message -
From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exim Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [exim] Sender callout verification with warning only
>
> >
> > Do you realise that callouts are considered abusive in anti-spam circles
and
> > are oft
Graeme Fowler napisał(a):
> However, they can be extremely useful in cases such as hosting farms,
> dedicated server providers and colos where all the mail goes out through
> a smarthost - calling back to *your own network* to check whether or not
> a sender is valid is very useful indeed.
>
The
Maybe also consider tweaking exim's various callout caching timers?
> - maintain a list of domains you never call out to
> - do as much envelope-checking as you can before triggering a callout
> (DNSBLs, verify=sender, SPF pass, HELO sanity)
> - expect to be listed by some agressive DNSBLs
> - do
On 06/07/07, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you realise that callouts are considered abusive in anti-spam circles and
> > are often used in certain forms of ddos attacks ? Some major mail servers
> > even BLOCK based on the number of callouts they receive from a given IP.
> > S
>
> Do you realise that callouts are considered abusive in anti-spam circles and
> are often used in certain forms of ddos attacks ? Some major mail servers
> even BLOCK based on the number of callouts they receive from a given IP.
> Something like 80% of emails are spam, so 80% of your callouts a
- Original Message -
From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exim Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: [exim] Sender callout verification with warning only
> We recently found that we could no longer use Exim's sender callout
> verification on our MX because
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 22:52 +0100, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> You don't need callouts full-stop. They are abusive behaviour and should not
> be used.
That's not *quite* true, Phil. Some people regard them as abusive if
they are done without any limitations whatsoever.
However, they can be ext
We recently found that we could no longer use Exim's sender callout
verification on our MX because people here rely on various web services
etc. that send auto-generated messages "from" addresses with incorrect
local parts (and identifying all of them so that exceptions could be
made also seeme
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
>> On 05/07/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out an easy way to send an automated abuse message
>>> (to: abuse@) so that it makes one attempt only and quits. Sort of like a
>>> fallback host to /dev/null.
>>>
>>> A
I have installed mdadm on my server to get some softrais running if there
is a failure mdadm should send an mail to my address. So far it works
great... but there is a poblem none of the mails have a duly completed
FROM:. The From part in the header is clear about this my email provi
51 matches
Mail list logo
