Tim:
>> That depends on the list. Some will automatically suspend you for one
>> or two failures.
Ed Greshko:
> I don't see a problem since the type of block being proposed would not
> result in an SMTP 5XX permanent error. It would simply result in a
> requeue of the email on the sending sid
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 07:15:58 -0700,
"Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" wrote:
>
> I think you have to decide if such a thing is a good idea by asking
> yourself what would happen if a larger percentage of the recipients did
> this. And if the mailing list were large, the server would be asked to
> do
Ed Greshko writes:
> I don't see a problem since the type of block being proposed would not
> result in an SMTP 5XX permanent error. It would simply result in a
> requeue of the email on the sending side in much the same way as the
> server being down on the receiving side or a network error bet
Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 17:32 -0600, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
>
>> And even if it's a temporary block, say lasting 5 minutes, that
>> shouldn't adversely affect mailing lists, I don't think.
>>
>
> That depends on the list. Some will automatically suspend you for one
> or two f
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 17:32 -0600, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> And even if it's a temporary block, say lasting 5 minutes, that
> shouldn't adversely affect mailing lists, I don't think.
That depends on the list. Some will automatically suspend you for one
or two failures.
--
[...@localhost ~]$
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
That depends on what mailing lists you are on. Some can send a lot of email.
I don't think you are going to find much antispam success trying to block
this way.
The few lists we're subscribed to, I don't see this happening. Even
with Fedora's list, I don't see a lot of
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:29 -0600, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> I currently have one system I'm testing the following rules on:
>
> iptables -N SSHSCAN
> iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -j SSHSCAN
> iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --set --name SSH
> iptables -
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 22:29:32 -0600,
"Ashley M. Kirchner" wrote:
>
>I currently have one system I'm testing the following rules on:
>
>iptables -N SSHSCAN
>iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -j SSHSCAN
>iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --set --name SSH
>
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
I currently have one system I'm testing the following rules on:
iptables -N SSHSCAN
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -j SSHSCAN
iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --set --name SSH
iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --update --seconds 300 --
I currently have one system I'm testing the following rules on:
iptables -N SSHSCAN
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -j SSHSCAN
iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --set --name SSH
iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --update --seconds 300 --hitcount 2
--name SSH -j D
10 matches
Mail list logo