Hello list..
Well! im kinda lost here..
I have like 8 domains hosted in my server. FreeBSD 7.2R, sendmail,
openwebmail, spamassassin, milter all installed.
I have few customers complaining that thier emails (the domain they send
from) to hotmail/yahoo..etc..
flagged as spam! i have
) to hotmail/yahoo..etc..
flagged as spam! i have googled and found most of problems about forward,
reverse DNS.
for me PTR, reverse DNS matchs the domain name. all the 8 domains matchs
reverse, PTR.
Since you didn't provide an example DSN or even anonymized logs of a bounce, we
can't
On 21/10/2010 01:10, Marwan Sultan wrote:
if I check that domain in mxtoolbox.com
it complains Warning - Reverse DNS does not match SMTP Banner
could it be the SMTP banner flagging the mail as spam?
This is certainly possible. It would add spam points on my servers.
The address
Hi my friends I have a big issue that I still cannot track what is
causing that my server stop working.
I have a spam gateway running:
spamassassin
clamavis
amavis
apache+mailgraph
postfix
bacula client
apcupsd client
My server is running freebsd 8.0-p2 AMD64. Raid-1.
Copyright (c) 1992-2009
On 10/06/2010 09:40 AM, perikillo wrote:
Hi my friends I have a big issue that I still cannot track what is
causing that my server stop working.
may be this bug?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/146792
a fix is also in the report
I have a spam gateway running:
spamassassin
is also in the report
I have a spam gateway running:
spamassassin
clamavis
amavis
apache+mailgraph
postfix
bacula client
apcupsd client
My server is running freebsd 8.0-p2 AMD64. Raid-1.
Copyright (c) 1992-2009 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991
it. Otherwise instead of help that organization will be giving more
problems besides the ones they have.
I will try openwebmail.
Thanks a lot.
At 01:54 a.m. 08/08/2010, Marwan Sultan wrote:
Hi..
For WebMail that has everything you want:
www.opebwebmail.org
For pop3 :
qpopper
For Spam:
SpamAssassin
Hi..
For WebMail that has everything you want:
www.opebwebmail.org
For pop3 :
qpopper
For Spam:
SpamAssassin
Default sendmail is good.
all the above is available from ports, I would recommend a manual install for
openwebmail instead of ports
so you can follow and know how things work
Its www.openwebmail.org NOT opewebmail - typo :)
If you need any help setting things up for your non-profit organization, let me
know.
Hi..
For WebMail that has everything you want:
www.opebwebmail.org
For pop3 :
qpopper
For Spam:
SpamAssassin
Default sendmail is good
Anti-virus, the only free one I know about is calm av. Should work on
FreeBSD: http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/ and /usr/ports/security/clamav
spamd is a black/white list spam filter. I also heard SpamAssassin is
good, but can't find it in ports.
For mail I like Courier-imap. It's imap
Hello all.
I am looking documentation for implementing, the easiest way anti
virus and anti spam configuration for non tech users and out of the
box after installing FreeBSD (actually using 7.3 Release).
I have been working with it for some years but I am not an expert at
all. I need to help
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
I am looking documentation for implementing, the easiest way anti virus and
anti spam configuration for non tech users and out of the box after
installing FreeBSD (actually using 7.3 Release).
[snip]
Do not edit a reply
On 5 jul 2010, at 18:16, Modulok wrote:
Hopefully this doesn't get too garbled by various mail clients:
Internet
|
FreeBSD router
|
(tagged frames)
|
switch
||
vlan1 vlan2
||
hostAhostB
Criteria:
- HostA must never directly talk to HostB.
Hello all.
I have a small machine with Freebsd 7.3, it is running sendmail for a
few email accounts.
I'd like to implement, the easiest and most secure way to do it since
machine is on a remote place where I have not access, I'd like to
implement a spam filter and an antivirus. I installed
of legislation known as CAN-SPAM. Their *forgery* of the
From: line to show the address of the mailing-list is a clear violation
of 15 USC 7704 (a) (1). What's even -more- fun, is that they are going to
shoot themselves in the foot -- they will auto-ack *this* message, thereby
establishing that they have
' -- They are in out-and-out violation of that mostly
*useless* piece of legislation known as CAN-SPAM. Their *forgery* of the
From: line to show the address of the mailing-list is a clear violation
of 15 USC 7704 (a) (1). What's even -more- fun, is that they are going to
shoot themselves
postmaster here is the whois info on mpcustomer.com
as you can see there is a phone number to call.
Why haven't you called to report this problem?
Registration Service Provided By: UK2 Group
Contact: hostmas...@westhost.com
Visit: http://uk2group.com
Domain name: mpcustomer.com
Registrant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
a dozen or more user accounts that haven't been actually used in over five
years and get dozens of spam hits every day. I had been just
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:59:45AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
a dozen or more user accounts that haven't been actually used in over
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:00:27PM -0500, John wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:59:45AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
a dozen
I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
a dozen or more user accounts that haven't been actually used in over five
years and get dozens of spam hits every day. I had been just sending
them all to /dev/null with a sendmail alias.
It seems to me
of
schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
message from inside a company would block all remaining mail from that
company. So, for this to work, you really need to time out your blocks
no more than an hour
On 27/04/2010 20:31, John wrote:
This seems to be working pretty well, and I'll eventually take the
print statement out, but I'm not sure why I had to make /dev/pf
public read/write in order to get the pfctl command to work.
What is the best solution to be able to add to my spammers table
in
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:46:41PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
On 27/04/2010 20:31, John wrote:
This seems to be working pretty well, and I'll eventually take the
print statement out, but I'm not sure why I had to make /dev/pf
public read/write in order to get the pfctl command to work.
.)
You'll have a lot of collateral damage. I've worked with a lot of
schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
message from inside a company would block all remaining mail from that
company. So
.)
You'll have a lot of collateral damage. I've worked with a lot of
schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
message from inside a company would block all remaining mail from that
company. So
John == John j...@starfire.mn.org writes:
John Grr. I just expired the first address, at four hours old, and
John IMMEDIATELY got a bunch Pfizer spams that were just delayed...
John This is certainly not an easy nut to crack.
If it were easy, they wouldn't need entire teams of people at
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:36:11PM +0100, Erik Norgaard wrote:
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
- why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
based that's the place to block.
I'm already under the University firewall. Only port 22 is let through.
But even that filles
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
This is a returning topic, search the archives. Anyway, the returning
answer:
- why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
based that's the place to block.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:42:06AM +0100, Erik Norgaard wrote:
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
This is a returning topic, search the archives. Anyway, the returning
answer:
- why not let your firewall do
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
- why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
based that's the place to block.
I'm already under the University firewall. Only port 22 is let through.
But even that filles my logs.
What I meant was that if you want to block IPs or ranges of
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
#sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
Why is it not a good idea?
Also, apparently
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
#sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
Why is it not a good idea?
Also,
David Southwell wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
#sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
Why is it not a good
allow ssh connections from IPs I know, preferably static
IPs.
Given that there are more than one general blacklists out there that
list unwanted behavior, and that we have ports that make use of these
lists, I wonder if we can use a list (in this case, for spam)
effective for blocking ssh connections
wonder if we can use a list (in this case, for spam)
effective for blocking ssh connections. This means:
install spamd
setup pf (requirement for spamd, it is built by OpenBSD after all)
in the pf rules, block *ANYTHING* coming from the blacklisted IPs
I don't know how effective
.
Given that there are more than one general blacklists out there that
list unwanted behavior, and that we have ports that make use of these
lists, I wonder if we can use a list (in this case, for spam)
effective for blocking ssh connections. This means:
install spamd
setup pf (requirement
rules. (Most spam-bots
don't, of course.) Otherwise, you'ld get the remote side retrying the message
several times an hour over the next 5 days before it timed out and gave up.
Also, apparently in older ssh there was DenyHosts option,
but no longer in the current version.
Is there a replacement
side will then immediately give up
trying to send the message if it's playing by the RFC rules. (Most spam-bots
don't, of course.) Otherwise, you'ld get the remote side retrying the
message
several times an hour over the next 5 days before it timed out and gave up.
Also, apparently
Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk writes:
I'm very grateful for all advice, but I'm still unsure
why denying ssh access to a particular host via /etc/hosts.allow
is a bad idea.
As far as I recall, the reason the warning was added to the manual was
that it's fairly heavy on resources to
up
trying to send the message if it's playing by the RFC rules. (Most
spam-bots
don't, of course.) Otherwise, you'ld get the remote side retrying the
message
several times an hour over the next 5 days before it timed out and gave
up.
Also, apparently in older ssh there was DenyHosts
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
2009/10/30 Matt Szubrycht ma...@bmihosting.com:
That's not normal... but then, what is these days?
You probably saved some webpage instead of the actual iso (or whatever other
format you were trying for)
As old video games used to say: 'Try again?'
Cheers,
Matt
On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:09
That's not normal... but then, what is these days?
You probably saved some webpage instead of the actual iso (or whatever
other format you were trying for)
As old video games used to say: 'Try again?'
Cheers,
Matt
On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Clayton Wilhelm da Rosa wrote:
Hi my name is
У Ср, 2009-08-05 у 20:41 +0300, Nikos Vassiliadis пише:
Is the vlan hardware processing enabled?
How I can enable this processing?
ifconfig em0 vlanhwtag enables vlan processing in hw
ifconfig em0 -vlanhwtag disables vlan processing in hw
Maybe one these will work correctly without
Andrey O.Sokolov wrote:
I tried both variant on both NIC - fxp and em
The result doesn't change ;(
You should post to net@ and maybe the maintainer will help
you. Include pciconf.
Perhaps off topic, but why are you interested in priority
tags, since FreeBSD will silently ignore them?
I
ingénieur spécialiste en motorisation,[IMG]
cette avancée technique vient renforcer
l'offre produits de l'entreprise
bretonne. L'objectif est à la fois ...
Ofcourse this message was SPAM (and I can't even read it because I don't
speek
Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
different pages like:
http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
through my website.
Please answer me.
Thanks,
Roberto
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Roberto jackal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
different pages like:
http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
through my website
In response to Roberto jackal...@gmail.com:
Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
different pages like:
http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
through my website.
Thanks for your email
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:22:27 -0800
Jason Irwin jir...@ohns.stanford.edu wrote:
In accordance with the University Winter Closure schedule, I will be
out of the office Friday, December 19th - Monday January 5th. I will
check voice mail and email upon my return in January.
Wonderful; another
In accordance with the University Winter Closure schedule, I will be out of the
office Friday, December 19th - Monday January 5th. I will check voice mail and
email upon my return in January.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
The term coined for this type of mail is backscatter.
There is no easy solution for this. The backscatter article on
postfix.org, for example, caused our mail servers to start rejecting
mail that was generated from PHP scripts and CGIs on our own systems,
which makes no sense. The
including kick
off a script to block the offending IP. In my case I just dump it
along with any spam to /dev/null. It works so well I had to bounce a
couple of emails just to make sure it wasn't also grabbing mine.
Nope, anything I bounce gets delivered. My backscatter is now
virtually zero
office that has 12 real estate agents
behind a single IP, all with Outlook set to check mail sooner than now. :-)
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely rejects 50 to 70% of incoming mail
with no false positives
is blocked at
the network layer.
The usual complaint is from an remote office that has 12 real estate agents
behind a single IP, all with Outlook set to check mail sooner than now.
:-)
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight
--On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:11:36 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely rejects 50 to 70
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:11:36 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely rejects
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses. The end result is that I am getting the bounce messages.
I'm sure
:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my email
address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses. The end
result is that I am getting the bounce messages. I'm sure that others
--On Thursday, October 16, 2008 09:01:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:01:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses.
The end
| email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses.
| The end result is that I am getting the bounce messages. I'm sure that
| others on this list have experienced the problem and maybe have a
| solution that I don't have.
|
| The messages are allowed through my obspamd/pf
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these rules[*],
use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely prevent the
spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses.
The end result is that I am
services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my email
address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses. The end
result is that I am getting the bounce messages. I'm sure that others on
this list have experienced the problem and maybe have a solution that I
don't
but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would exacerbate
the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would exacerbate
backscatter not improve
Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
Luke Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these
rules[*], use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the
spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started
and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:01:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam from multiple
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:58:44 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi__:
Many people recommend SPF for backscatter, but I've yet to hear a
cogent argument for why it helps beyond the very optimistic hope
that spammers will check that their spam is spf compliant.
I
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:38 AM, RW wrote:
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would
exacerbate
backscatter not improve it.
The main problem resulting in backscatter happens when forged spam
from
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:38 AM, RW wrote:
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would exacerbate
backscatter not improve it.
The main problem resulting in backscatter
that their spam is spf compliant.
I feel the same way and thanks for adding some humor to the situation.
Actually that wasn't a joke, some people do cite that as the reason
why SPF helps with backscatter, that spammers will leave your domain
out of the mail from line if you publish SPF records for it.
I
Paul Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
--On Thursday, October 16, 2008 09:01:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple
by these
rules[*], use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level
and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses.
When this happens I enable the move all messages from mailer-daemon
to /dev
Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses.
When this happens I enable
[*], use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:59:17AM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses.
When
At 10:37 PM 9/8/2008, Michael wrote:
Derek Ragona wrote:
I have a FreeBSD 7 release I wanted to use as a host for virtual
machines. What software is anyone else using to host virtual machines
under FreeBSD?
I'd just like to here what has worked, or what has not worked. I find it
easier
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
1) How is this possible?
2) What can I or do I have to do against it?
I am running a quite plain sendmail setup from
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
1) How is this possible?
2) What can I or do I have to do against it?
I am running
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
How have you identified that they are actually being delivered by your
server itself
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 11:40 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
How have you identified
Steve Bertrand schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my
own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
How have you identified that they are actually being delivered
On Aug 27, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
1) How is this possible?
Forging email headers is trivial. You can
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Steve Bertrand schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with
my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
The only way to tell for certain is to review
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Matthew's message beat me to the response but I had typed
one. There are some great tools
Sorry, I forgot to post to the list!
Matthew Seaman schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Steve Bertrand schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my
own (small) mail server, some of them with faked
usernames
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Matthew Seaman schrieb:
If you're using sendmail as your MTA, then look at
implementing the following features in your $(hostname).mc:
Would that mean a file called
/etc/mail/pukruppa.net.mc
in my case? Since I get
# hostname
pukruppa.net
or do I
At 07:49 PM 8/15/2008, Tom Stuart wrote:
I have tried doing the forwarding via /etc/mail/aliases and it worked
identically as it was with the /root/.forward. The mail does go through
but gets delayed 5+ minutes, however when I send mail interactively using
mailx or mail commands the receiving
On 30 Jul 2008 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] entreated
about
freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 226, Issue 6:
Message: 26
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:24:49 +0200
From: Coert Waagmeester [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: local mirrors of ports and packages?
To: FreeBSD-questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Hi
At 07:14 PM 7/30/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Derek,
As mentioned in my post, I have configured the Adaptec BIOS
(SCSIselect/HostRAID) to create a RAID0 array.
The GENERIC Kernel natively-uses the 'ahd' adapter for this card,
Thanks for the quick reply!
I created the array in the Adaptec BIOS and confirmed it with an XP
installer disk, which gave me the option to install to the array as I
had named it.
I have to apologise for not having the actual dmesg handy but
identifies the disks much like the example
At 07:53 PM 7/30/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply!
I created the array in the Adaptec BIOS and confirmed it with an XP
installer disk, which gave me the option to install to the array as I had
named it.
I have to apologise for not having the actual dmesg handy but
At 03:49 PM 7/27/2008, Bruno Joho wrote:
Hi Derek
thanks for the reply.
My intention was to deliver the mails between the workstations on the
LAN directly. Every Workstation
on the LAN would have an appropriate cf file which forwards mails with
a destination on the WAN - to the
WAN-Smarthost,
101 - 200 of 885 matches
Mail list logo
