TheOldFellow wrote:
> In that way when a triple (IP,sender,destination) is checked against
> the greylist dbase, the IP is masked first, so all the IPs in a range
> are treated as the same.
This is what is in the default client whitelist for postgrey (the one
that whitelists senders) for google:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:32:54 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem as we can tell is that many large ISPs use multiple
> servers for outgoing MTAs. This causes a delay for every server.
> Additionally, the retry time is up to the sender and delays of hours
> is not uncommon
TheOldFellow wrote:
> Did you see this system for 'autowhitelisting' that works with postgrey?
>
> http://oc-co.org/p2pwl/
I looked at this. Postgrey already does autowhitelisting internally. I'm
not sure which is more effective.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FA
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Forcibly removing the user from the lists and restarting postfix and
> mailman _seems_ to have fixed the issue. Although why one unresolvable
> domain was causing so much trouble, I'm not sure. I'm looking into it
> further...
Just to reiterate, greylisting was *not* th
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Digging deeper...
>
> Time test to lfs-dev, 0046 EDT - please ignore
This one came through right away. There was a user subscribed to
alfs-discuss and lfs-support that was using an unresolvable domain.
Mailman was attempting to deliver to this
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Digging deeper...
Time test to lfs-dev, 0046 EDT - please ignore
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We're sorry about the delays today
There still seems to be a delay to the lists. And FWIW, if you were
monitoring the lists at all the past _week_ or so you would have noticed
that there was a delay on the lists. I only implemented greylisting on
quantum yesterday. Obviousl
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/08/07 15:43 CST:
>
>> All mails appear to lag about 30 minutes. From everyone. I'm going
>> on the time the email is sent by the sender, and the time it hits
>> my mailbox. My polling for mail is not the issue.
>
> There was no reply
Two typos there are in my copy of the BLFS book version 6.2.
Installation of the xterm:
[QUOTE]
Install xterm by running the following commands:
TERMINFO=/usr/lib/terminfo ./configure $XORG_CONFIG \
--enable-luit --with-wide-chars \
--with-app-default=$XORG_PREFIX/share/X11/app-defaults &
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/08/07 15:43 CST:
>
>> All mails appear to lag about 30 minutes. From everyone. I'm going
>> on the time the email is sent by the sender, and the time it hits
>> my mailbox. My polling for mail is not the issue.
>
> There was no reply
Time now 2211 CDT
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/08/07 15:43 CST:
> All mails appear to lag about 30 minutes. From everyone. I'm going
> on the time the email is sent by the sender, and the time it hits
> my mailbox. My polling for mail is not the issue.
There was no reply to my comments. And emails throug
Dan Nicholson escribió:
> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
>> year ago, or a new booting scheme...
>
> This is actually something I want to bring up. Our booting is dog
> slow. Maybe it's time to look int
Manuel,
I pulled the new style sheets from svn. How do you use them? Do you
just have a temporary symbolic link from the trunk/BOOK/stylesheets to
../../branches/new-xsl/ ?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 22:32, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> I'll pull the xsl and look some more.
>
Great, I need inputs about the explanatory comments.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/l
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/08/07 15:06 CST:
> I don't see anything *from* you that has been delayed, but it would be
> easy to miss something.
>
> I'll continue to investigate.
All mails appear to lag about 30 minutes. From everyone. I'm going
on the time the email is sent by the sender
M.Canales.es wrote:
> What I noticed, is that in Acrobat Reader 5.0 the fonts looks nice, but in
> KGoshtView looks a little ugly. Maybe due that Acrobat Reader uses their own
> fonts while other readers uses the ones from gs?
Sounds right. I was using xpdf.
> In new-xsl/stylesheets/pdf/lfs-a
TheOldFellow wrote:
> I have had two instances where a big server farm insisted on sending
> the retrys from many different IPs. This can confuse some greylisters -
> glst/xmail has a method of handling this, but it needs careful setup.
> The culprit is gmail/googlemail!! I expect the postgrey sy
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/08/07 12:47 CST:
>
>> Anyway, the fact that we are having this conversation and that mailman
>> is processing fewer junk emails shows that it is working as we hoped.
>
> But it appears that mails are taking 30 minutes or more to be
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 21:10, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> Is this a function of the reader's system or the system that renders the
> pdf. I thought the actual fonts used were enclosed in the file. I'm
> not 100% sure though.
For specifications, the Base-14 fonts must be available to all P
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 20:52, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> One place that is still a problem is the last paragraph of 8.2 (page
> 212). The long config variables, CONFIG_NLS_DEFAULT,
> CONFIG_SMB_NLS_DEFAULT, CONFIG_FAT_DEFAULT_CODEPAGE, and
> CONFIG_FAT_DEFAULT_IOCHARSET throw off the word sp
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/08/07 12:47 CST:
> Anyway, the fact that we are having this conversation and that mailman
> is processing fewer junk emails shows that it is working as we hoped.
But it appears that mails are taking 30 minutes or more to be
delivered, even for whitelisted
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/08/07 13:06 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> 3. Use the larger patch (706998 bytes) and call it 'upstream_fixes'
>>or something.
>>
>> Which way should we go?
>
> I understand that the tests fail due to test suite problems, but does
> the program itself fail
M.Canales.es wrote:
>> 1. The font on the headers doesn't seem right. Most of the text is
>> standard serif fonts (computer modern?). That looks fine. The headers
>> are sans-serif and bold. The bold seems a little too wide.
>
> My acroreader say that the used ones are this
>
> Arial-BoldMT
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 17:33, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
>> The URLs hyphenation support on the old stylesheets and FOP-0.20 was very
>> ugly. I will test if the current one is more usable and, if true, trying to
>> extend the support also to filenames.
>
> And done:
>
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 19:30, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> I like this a lot better.
Thanks.
> Now I'm going to get a bit picky about the pdf, but its offered in a
> constructive manner. Don't feel obligated to fix any of these issues.
> I'd like to see other opinions too.
Starting with m
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:40:12 -0600
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> Inspired by an email from Richard Downing, I decided to look into
> using greylisting to help fight spam. If you haven't heard of it
> before see: http://www.greylisting.org
Did you see this system
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 17:33, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
> The URLs hyphenation support on the old stylesheets and FOP-0.20 was very
> ugly. I will test if the current one is more usable and, if true, trying to
> extend the support also to filenames.
And done:
http://www.lfs-es.info/new-l
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, the book has CUPS-1.2.7. 1.2.10 is the current version.
>
> However, the current version fails the test suite miserably. It is
> a known bug, and fixed in SVN. I made a very small patch that updates
> the 1.2.10 'test' directory to SVN, and all but 1
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:17:03 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/07/07 20:40 CST:
>
> > I tried a Postfix implementation called Postgrey on my own personal
> > server and the results were very good. (See
> > http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/). Ba
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:28:06AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> You haven't been seeing it because we've been managing it. This action
> was to try to reduce the management workload.
>
Thanks for what you guys have been doing. Hope this works.
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Ma
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Yeah, but how hard would it be to add retrying to a spammer's botnet
> software? I'm going to predict that within the next year, if
> greylisting is implemented widely (and I've been hearing about it a lot,
> but I don't know how many servers actually do it), the spammers wi
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 04:28, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> Please, try to keep the CC to lfs-dev.
Yes, I was a little too quick in replying. I think the lfs-dev is the
proper place for this discussion.
>> I do think that each section in Chapters 5 and 6 that install a
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Yes, but my ISP's mailer doesn't retry for at least 10 minutes. The
> message I sent whose date was 9:06 AM EST didn't actually get delivered
> to me until 9:18 AM EST; the intervening time was the server delay. Not
> that that's bad, mind you, but I don't think it's speci
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The systems is supposed to just give a temporary failure.
And it does -- after the RCPT TO, it gives a "450 4.7.1 :
Recipient address rejected: greylisted, see " type response. So at
least the postgrey people were smart enough to do that. ;-)
> Many times spammers use cut d
El Domingo, 8 de Abril de 2007 04:28, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
Please, try to keep the CC to lfs-dev.
>
> I do think that each section in Chapters 5 and 6 that install a new
> package should start on a new page, but places like Chapters 8 and 9 and
> possibly 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 should 'flow'.
Yes, I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/07/07 20:40 CST:
>
>> I tried a Postfix implementation called Postgrey on my own personal
>> server and the results were very good. (See
>> http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/). Based on those results it was decided
>> to implement this se
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/07/07 20:40 CST:
> I tried a Postfix implementation called Postgrey on my own personal
> server and the results were very good. (See
> http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/). Based on those results it was decided
> to implement this service on Quantum.
Who decided
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The basic idea is that whenever a new MTA (one that is not in the
> greylisting database) attempts to deliver mail, the mail is
> automatically rejected. If the MTA is a valid MTA, it will retry to
> deliver the mail after a few minutes.
Assuming the user doesn't get a
39 matches
Mail list logo
