Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: John Levine; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
You're making it sound as if greylisting
NO. I'm making it sound like greylisting is NOT the world's answer to
stopping spam. It's NOT a miracle cure, it is NOT the last, best hope
for peace.
Sigh. You might want to read the paper Experiences with Greylisting
from the 2005 CEAS conference.
It was my original intention to show
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:01 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: John Levine; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
I would disagree on the blacklisting part. I think that a lot
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:40 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Eric Crist; Grant Peel; Christopher Hilton;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 29, 2007, at 5:00 AM
-Original Message-
From: John Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:31 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Email is not an instant messaging system, no matter how much you want
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenny Dail
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:18 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
I'm monitoring systems at the ISP I work at. No, it is not life
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:16:23AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The system that would cause problems if it ran
greylisting is not MY system. It's the mailserver owned by the cellular
company that I am sending to. If they went and installed greylisting
it is highly unlikely I could get
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Both of those are assumptions your making
with the messages once a week because it's such a hassle
but don't seem to mind putting up with one or two spam messages having
to be manually deleted out of the inbox. It's also ironic that you are
on call 24/7 and can't get away from the electronic tether but say you
have a life that can't be bothered
,
clickatell.com offers a HTTP POST to SMS gateway quite cheaply, about
10 cents a message at low volumes.
Having been dealing with spam for over a decade, I cannot tell you how
tired I am of people whining that the world better not implement some
effective anti-abuse technique because it would cause
On Apr 30, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I don't understand why people are focusing on trying to redesign
the monitoring system I'm using. Don't you have any imagination
at all? The point was that there are legitimate situations where
the delays introduced by greylisting are a
need their email as an instant messaging service. The
possibility of establishing a domain into a whitelist or testing a
connection and notification system periodically, which would put his
domain into their imaginary whitelist, is simply too inconvenient,
unlike the deletion of spam
-Original Message-
From: Sam Lawrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:59 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Email is not an instant messaging system, no matter how much you want
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:01 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Eric Crist; Grant Peel; Christopher Hilton;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:25
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; Grant Peel; Eric Crist;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:00 AMApr 29, 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
If the monitoring system notices something down, I have to know about
it within a few minutes. I cannot wait for the mailserver that
sends the
page out to retry sending the page to the cell carrier's mailserver
in an hour.
Email is not an instant messaging system, no matter how much you want
it to be one.
Cell phone companies won't take pages any other way no matter how much you
want them to.
This might be a good time to learn about outfits like clickatell.com
that provide SMS gateway service. They charge
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sam Lawrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:59 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Email is not an instant
I'm monitoring systems at the ISP I work at. No, it is not life or
death
if a feed goes down for 3 hours and a bunch of people cannot download
their daily freebsd-questions mailing list fix. At least, I don't
think
so. But they do. And as their money that buys the ISP's product
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Both of those are assumptions your making that are just not true
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; Grant Peel; Eric Crist;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
Hilton
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[snip]
When I scan my maillogs
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail
address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server
failure.
I would
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
Hilton
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Ted
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail
address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server
failure.
I
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Sean Hilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:05 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[snip...]
Greylisting works because many, and I'd like
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server failure.
I would be pretty pissed
so much faith in the delaying, is simply
that you aren't getting a lot of spam.
I have published e-mail addresses. Without greylisting I got about
1500-2000 mail messages a day to each of them.
Greylisting isn't just about delaying. IIRC greylisting is filtering for
spam/ham based
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[snip...]
Greylisting works because many, and I'd like to say most, spam programs
never retry message delivery.
Actually, no. Greylisting works because it delays the spam injector
long enough that the injector will get blacklisted by the time that the
greylist opens
Just my $0.02. Have you considered adding greylisting. I find the
combination of greylisting and Spamassassin with the SA's bayes filter
completely handles my spam problem. On my primary MX I use spamd on
OpenBSD and on my secondary MX I use spamd on FreeBSD. As a very
informal method
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
Hilton
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Grant Peel
Cc: Eric Crist; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Just my $0.02. Have you considered
Derek Ragona wrote:
At 11:43 AM 4/20/2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam
the URI-RBLs, dcc and razor2.
Third party rules from www.rulesemporium.com are a must are as is the the
imageinfo plugin.
You could always ask on the spamassassin users list for advice on tuning
you
setup and get some of the spam you get analysed by those of us running
well
tuned SA setups so you
From: Grant Peel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me
or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have
been
Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Anti Spam
On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:43 AMApr 20, 2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me
users list for advice on tuning you
setup and get some of the spam you get analysed by those of us running well
tuned SA setups so you know which extra rulesets will help.
Go on as on the SA users list, we're a friendly bunch and will help you with
your problem.
--
Martin
On 4/20/07, Grant Peel
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Derek Ragona spaketh thusly:
-}
-}If your volume of mail is 5 per day don't use the baracuda. It won't
-}keep up.
I think this greatly depends on the model. I've not used the 200 but it
certainly is a small box. My experience shows the 600 could easily handle
this per
Hi Grant,
I'm using postfix and a very good sets of pcre rules which takes care of
more than 90% of all spam.
Spamassassin will do the rest. The only spam I receive is on my postmaster
account.
Postfix uses greylisting, a set of rbl lists and a pcre rule set op the helo
check
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing Spamassassin locally
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Grant Peel spaketh thusly:
-}Hi all,
-}
-}I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
-}
-}We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Peel
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:43 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Anti Spam
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the list
Also look into postfix along with policyd-weight
(http://www.policyd-weight.org/).
That's all I use and I probably get about 2 spam a day... I used to get
40-50... in a nutshell it checks multiple dnsbls and uses a scoring
system to block it before you ever get the message body
I found this article and it helped alot. I rarely have any spam get through.
Thee are 2 parts to this so maker sure you goto page 3 and scroll to the
bottom of the page for a link to page 2 if you don't want to read this
section
http://www.crn.com/white-box/188701471?pgno=1
--
Darrell
[EMAIL
Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me
or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have
been employing
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the list.
I work for an ISP with a mix of freeBSD and Linus servers.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now
to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing Spamassassin locally and using some 3rd party Anti-Spam servervices
that are getting less and less reliable as the weeks go by.
We are considering two hardware solutions, Easyantispam
At 11:43 AM 4/20/2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have
On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:43 AMApr 20, 2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of
ISPs using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback,
either directly to me or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam
Hi Olivier,
With the flash9 plugin I also get a blank box in the browser window
where the flash animation should be. Using flash7 fixes the problem.
Rgds/Mark
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 13:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Selon Mark Hannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Olivier,
I have not
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 18:26:20 Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Beni wrote:
Hi list,
When reading through my dmesg, I found this sysctl error/message : sysctl
: hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest : Invalid argument. Now there is no mention what
so ever of that option in my /etc/sysctl.conf, so I didn't set
Angelin Lalev wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about some tool that
1
Angelin Lalev wrote:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about some tool that
1. store
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Gary Kline wrote:
What I got caught on was client, altho from the context,
here ``client'' seems to mean the mail-server-sending-spam.'
In the unix world, my server is the client--unless the
client-server model is different with email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking
about some tool that
1. store
In the last episode (Apr 03), Gary Kline said:
I've been experimenting with greylisting for months. Not sure the
regular mail filter installs or not, but the devel version installed
just now perfectly.
Is there any tutorial on this or should I just re-read the man pages
and other docs a
the mail-server-sending-spam.'
In the unix world, my server is the client--unless the
client-server model is different with email. Another reason
I didn't reinstall is that an hour seems far too long. A few
to = 15 minutes seems closert to what a spammer just
Angelin Lalev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
black= list enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam
messages a day (image spam mostly).
how about greylisting? putting something like a greylisting pf/spamd
in front of your
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:49:19PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 03), Angelin Lalev said:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam messages
a day (image spam mostly
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist
enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about
some tool that
1. store incoming
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Angelin Lalev wrote:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist
enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about
some tool
, since you are already using SpamAssassin, and the problem
seems to be image spam, you should probably try installing FuzzyOCR
instead, which is in ports.
# make search name=fuzzyocr
Port: p5-FuzzyOcr-2.3.b_2,1
Path: /usr/ports/mail/p5-FuzzyOcr
Info: Plugin for SpamAssassin which scans image
On Apr 2, 2007, at 17:08, Kurt Buff wrote:
Do you receive mail from lists such as this one?
Do you receive mail from non-responding mailboxes, such as network
notificationss, etc.?
Do you care about your new correspondents?
If you answer 'yes' to any of these messages, then a
[mailed and posted]
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Angelin Lalev wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse
In the last episode (Apr 03), Angelin Lalev said:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam messages
a day (image spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was
thinking about
how it prevents
spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a
DSN to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus
sender and is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific definition -- look in the RFCs as I don't
remember which RFC
] then I don't see how it prevents spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a DSN
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus sender and
is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific definition -- look in the RFCs as I don't remember
which
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:00 -0400, Marcelo Maraboli wrote:
I agree. callbacks are not enough, you can reach a
false conclusion, that´s why I use SPF along with callbacks...
on the same message, my MX concludes:
you are sending email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], but shire.net
says YOUR
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:00 -0400, Marcelo Maraboli wrote:
I agree. callbacks are not enough, you can reach a
false conclusion, that´s why I use SPF along with callbacks...
on the same message, my MX concludes:
you are
spam.
As the above poster says SPF is the way to go. SPF gives the receiving
MTA a mechanism to vet inbound mail. For any combination of mail
server and from address/from domain there are three possible results
from an SPF check: The server is allowed to send mail for the domain;
The server
to deliver a
message via smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then I don't see how it prevents
spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a
DSN to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus
sender and is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific
John L wrote:
I phrased it wrong. You are not responsible for the content, but you
are responsible for the mail domain and that includes verifying that
mail is validly from your domain you are responsible for.
Oh, OK. So if someone sends pump and dump with a [EMAIL PROTECTED] return
2007 19:28
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; users@spamassassin.apache.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tool for validating sender address as spam-fighting technique?
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers looking to
evade it -- use real sender addresses. Where's an easy place to find
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
evade
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
On Mar 11, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
LLC wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification
suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique,
in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
evade it -- use real sender addresses. Where's an easy place to
find
real addresses
Perhaps we are talking about different things, I am talking about
systems which send me an email back requiring me to do steps a, b or c
in order to complete delivery of the email.
that's challenge/response, which has been widely discredited for years.
SAV is a receiving MX probing the MX of
years back spam return addresses
were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
They have been doing that for ages. I run a hosting service and have
had that problem way before sender verification became in vogue.
I've
, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique,
in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
evade it -- use real sender addresses. Where's
have you been on? A few years back spam return addresses
were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
They have been doing that for ages. I run a hosting service and have
had that problem way before sender verification
have you been on? A few years back spam return addresses
were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
I've had to locally blacklist a few places specifically because of
all of their abusive verification. If that's what you
in a separate easy to block IP range.
Amazing, as I run mail for lots of domains, and replying to sender
verification is almost a nonexistent load compared to the mail bombs
and bounces etc.
Show me your numbers.
What planet have you been on? A few years back spam return
addresses
were typically
I phrased it wrong. You are not responsible for the content, but you are
responsible for the mail domain and that includes verifying that mail is
validly from your domain you are responsible for.
Oh, OK. So if someone sends pump and dump with a [EMAIL PROTECTED] return
address, and I do a
compared to our overall load.
You are complaining about a non issue. I can say that address
verification helps us reject the lion's share of spam we receive
without having to process it further.
Chad
Don't forget that the From: line address need not be the same as
the bounce address
onfirmed that the mail is from you, after all
No. His MX has only verified his email address, which does not say he
sent the msg.
Len
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
onfirmed that the mail is from you, after all
No. His MX has only verified his email address, which does not say
he sent the msg.
Then what was the point?
His MX has only verified his email address
Len
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 10, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Kelly Jones wrote:
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given email sender. Is there a Unix tool that does
this?
The basics are simple: to validate [EMAIL PROTECTED], I connect to
the MX record
technology. The counter
measures always cost more than the sending of the spam
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given email sender. Is there a Unix tool that does
this?
The basics are simple: to validate [EMAIL PROTECTED], I connect to
the MX record of wnonline.net and go as far as RCPT TO as follows:
host -t mx
--On Tuesday, February 06, 2007 09:46:14 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh, another thing. I've used HR Block's online tax accounting service,
and although it's not the best interface, it's just as good as some
copies of Turbotax that I've seen.
You used it with FreeBSD? What browser? And
Paul Schmehl writes:
Uvscan is McAfee's antivirus product. Did you install it? There's a conf
file in the files directory of that port. It defines AVSCANNER as /usr/
local/bin/uvscan. That would require that you have McAfee Antivirus for
FreeBSD installed. If this machine handles lots of mail,
Has anyone gotten the port
/usr/ports/mail/antivirus-milter to work?
The system in question runs FreeBSD5.4 with sendmail and
bogofilter. Bogofilter is excellent at helping sort messages in
to spam or other folders if you generate a large wordlist.
One category
in
to spam or other folders if you generate a large wordlist.
One category of junkmail, however, is not true spam. It
is more a form of hacking in that it tries to implant viruses
like Johny Appleseed only this guy is Johny weedseed.
I got antivirus-milter to make and install
Jason C. Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a bunch of mail piling up in /var/spool/mqueue. It appears to be
all spam and it appears to be generated on the localhost. I am not
sending it.
Like Jeff said, this looks very much like bounces generated by spam
which was sent with a forged
the bounce.
Most likely spam using a forged (or real) address
something@macbilling.com was sent to your system to
somefakeaddress@highperformance.net and of course your system could
not deliver the message so it bounced.
As another idea, if these are being generated as a result of spam
I have a bunch of mail piling up in /var/spool/mqueue. It appears to be
all spam and it appears to be generated on the localhost. I am not
sending it. I double checked my self @ abuse.net to see if I was an
open relay, I'm not. I can't really say where it's coming from. How do
I figure
The example below is simply a bounce that did not go through.
Note: Mailer-Daemon and MDeferred: Connection refused by macbilling.com.
Your system attempted to delivery a bounce back to macbilling.com and
the MTA @ macbilling.com is rejecting the bounce.
Most likely spam using a forged
Jeff Royle wrote:
Welcome to the running a mailserver on the intertubes. :-)
And it used to be such a nice neighborhood. :(
It's hard to be a good netizen. I probably don't spend as much time on
it as purist would prefer. I just try to sweep up whatever flotsam
comes my way when I find
301 - 400 of 885 matches
Mail list logo
