I've had to messages get rejected, and I'm not sure why.
They list incident numbers 37846 and 37848 in their rejection notice..
What's up?
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list
MIMEDefang@lists.
Al Sparks wrote:
> However, the desktop folks now want to quarantine the spam instead of
> bouncing it, and have a mechanism that a user/customer can grab that
> quarantined spam.
> Of course, it has to be user friendly (web based?) and preferably no
> local access to the mail relay by customers.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Pramod Anugu wrote:
The below does limit for every users. But I need to limit for certain users
5 MB, For some users 20 MB and for some 50MB.
thanks
I do the following on one of my customer's mailservers. It isn't exactly
what you want (I limit by attach size, not whole me
Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
> ... Rejecting the email
> after DATA is messy, especially when you have multiple recipients
> with conflicting quota limits.
I wonder if it might be worthwhile having three different domains, each with
their own MX IPs... one for the 5MB group, one for the 20MB group, a
Les Mikesell wrote:
> I think I've seen this mentioned before but can't find the answer.
> I'm getting a bunch of spam where the sender MX ends up pointing to
> 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0. Is there a way to reject this quickly? Not
> only is there the obvious problem of a bounce, but many of the
> des
Al Sparks wrote:
> However, the desktop folks now want to quarantine the spam instead of
> bouncing it, and have a mechanism that a user/customer can grab that
> quarantined spam.
How about this
http://www.mimedefang.org/kwiki/index.cgi?QuarantineManager
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0500, Pramod Anugu wrote:
> The below does limit for every users. But I need to limit for certain users
> 5 MB, For some users 20 MB and for some 50MB.
> thanks
Most ESMTP mailers nowadays will tell you the size of the email using
an option on the MAIL FROM line
I think I've seen this mentioned before but can't find the answer. I'm
getting a bunch of spam where the sender MX ends up pointing to
127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0. Is there a way to reject this quickly? Not
only is there the obvious problem of a bounce, but many of the
destination users have moved and
Running spamassassin and MimeDefang on a linux box running sendmail.
Sendmail is configured as a relay, that sends email on to a variety of
different small to medium sized Exchange servers, which are customers.
So far, we've been bouncing email with a fairly high spam score, and
letting the vario
Scott Wunsch wrote:
> Recently, I decided it was well past time to upgrade the machines, and
> upgraded them to Mandriva 10.2. I also upgraded from MIMEDefang 2.49 to
> 2.52 at the same time, and I've since upgraded again to 2.53.
Could Mandriva be doing something wacky with permissions and/or "c
Hi folks,
I've had MIMEDefang running happily on Red Hat 9 for a couple years now.
Recently, I decided it was well past time to upgrade the machines, and
upgraded them to Mandriva 10.2. I also upgraded from MIMEDefang 2.49 to
2.52 at the same time, and I've since upgraded again to 2.53.
Since th
The below does limit for every users. But I need to limit for certain users
5 MB, For some users 20 MB and for some 50MB.
thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:37 PM
To: mimedefang@lists
On 09/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking to run a second antivirus engine on my
>
> sendmail
> MIMEDefang
> ClamAV
> SpamAssassin
>
> boxen. I'm disillusioned with File::Scan (not that I was ever greatly
> illusioned with it in the first place.) What are you usin
Pramod Anugu wrote:
> does anyone know if its possible (and how to accomplish) enforcing a
> size limitation on email . if I want to limit email to 5Mb or under,
> and then reject it. I wan to reject it as soon as
> 5.1Mb is received. is this possible?.Can i also limit based on the
> groups. For c
does anyone know if its possible (and how to accomplish) enforcing a size
limitation on email . if I want to limit email to 5Mb or under, and then
reject it. I wan to reject it as soon as
5.1Mb is received. is this possible?.Can i also limit based on the groups.
For certain group the limit is 5 MB
does anyone know if its possible (and how to accomplish) enforcing a size
limitation on email . if I want to limit email to 5Mb or under, and then
reject it. I wan to reject it as soon as
5.1Mb is received. is this possible?.Can i also limit based on the groups.
For certain group the limit is 5 MB
> REQUIRED: Must detect viruses with reasonable response rate for virus
definitions
> OPTIONAL: Free is good
> I'm happy with ClamAV but I think two engines are better than one, no?
For the time being, I would avoid Central Command's VEXIRA product. Early
this year, they completely re-worked the
I'm looking to run a second antivirus engine on my
sendmail
MIMEDefang
ClamAV
SpamAssassin
boxen. I'm disillusioned with File::Scan (not that I was ever greatly
illusioned with it in the first place.) What are you using? Can you recommend
anything?
REQUIRED: Must detect viruses with reasona
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:58:56PM -0400, Chris Gauch wrote:
> > because chances are they'll contain probe addresses that might
> > be helpful for tracking down the spammers.
>
> Yes, we are certainly doing that. We log the REFERER information including
> remote IP addresses to a database and che
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:40:01PM -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > "Will the latest version of Mimedefang, work with my current version of
> > Spamassassin?"
>
> Yes.
And as an added bonus: SURBL also works with your current version of
spamassassin if you're using the Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCo
Wow, that was quick!
Thank you very much David.
On Friday 09 September 2005 13:40, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Larry Starr wrote:
> > "Will the latest version of Mimedefang, work with my current version of
> > Spamassassin?"
>
> Yes.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
> _
Larry Starr wrote:
> "Will the latest version of Mimedefang, work with my current version of
> Spamassassin?"
Yes.
Regards,
David.
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list
MIMEDefang@lists.roaringp
I am currently running Mimedefang Version: 2.37
and spamassassin Version: 2.60.
I want to upgrade to the latest version of Mimedefang, and to the latest (or
nearly latest) version of Spamassassin (primarily to take advantage of the
SURBL functionality).
The catch is that I would like, very much
David Skoll wrote:
> Chris Gauch wrote:
>
> [Add fake fields to forms and reject if they're not blank.]
>
> Now THAT is clever. I like it!
>
> In fact, you might want to log the contents of the fields somewhere,
> because chances are they'll contain probe addresses that might
> be helpful for
Chris Gauch wrote:
[Add fake fields to forms and reject if they're not blank.]
Now THAT is clever. I like it!
In fact, you might want to log the contents of the fields somewhere,
because chances are they'll contain probe addresses that might
be helpful for tracking down the spammers.
Regards,
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
>
> Kelson wrote:
> > James Ebright wrote:
> >> Check the URI referrer and only allow the web form to be hit FROM
> >> the URLS that it should be linked to otherwise simply return an
> >> error similar to unauthorized access attempt
> >
> > Not sufficient. These are
Kelson wrote:
> James Ebright wrote:
>> Check the URI referrer and only allow the web form to be hit FROM
>> the URLS that it should be linked to otherwise simply return an
>> error similar to unauthorized access attempt
>
> Not sufficient. These are being done using direct hits to port 80,
>
Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
The best protection is to look for embedded CR or LF characters in
a field that should not contain such characters, like the Subject,
To, From or any other field that would end up in a header. If there
are any, just reject with an error.
You might want to ignore newlines
James Ebright wrote:
Check the URI referrer and only allow the web form to be hit FROM the URLS
that it should be linked to otherwise simply return an error similar to
unauthorized access attempt
Not sufficient. These are being done using direct hits to port 80, not
actual web browsers, s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MIMEDefang has a "suspicious characters in headers" check.
Actually, that wasn't it. It turns out that the problem was File::Scan.
I am going to remove automatic detection and use of File::Scan in the
next release of MIMEDefang. Way too many false-positives.
Regards
Chris Gauch wrote:
> We are currently running ClamAV (0.86.2) in a Linux Sendmail (8.13.4)
> and MIMEDefang (2.53)
> our logs indicate that over 86 attachments have been
> flagged as "suspicious" by ClamAV 0.86.2 over the past couple of
> days. We're beginning to wonder how many of those "suspicio
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:49:14AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> If I have both sophos and clamav installed, how can I be sure that both
> are being used? I see logs for clamd in syslog, but that's not how
> sophos sweep works ... so, what do I need to do to make sure that
> sophos is being invoked
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:09 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
If I have both sophos and clamav installed, how can I be sure that
both are being used? I see logs for clamd in syslog, but that's not
how sophos sweep works ... so, what do I need to do to make sure that
sophos is being
John Rudd wrote:
> If I have both sophos and clamav installed, how can I be sure that
> both are being used? I see logs for clamd in syslog, but that's not
> how sophos sweep works ... so, what do I need to do to make sure that
> sophos is being invoked?
Modify mimedefang-filter to skip clamav fo
If I have both sophos and clamav installed, how can I be sure that both
are being used? I see logs for clamd in syslog, but that's not how
sophos sweep works ... so, what do I need to do to make sure that
sophos is being invoked?
___
Visit http://
35 matches
Mail list logo
