David F. Skoll wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
MIMEDefang 2.60 is available from http://www.mimedefang.org/node.php?id=1
Very short changelog from 2.59:
2007-02-02 David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* VERSION 2.60 RELEASED
* mimedefang.c: Fix filte
Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On Thursday, February 1, 2007 10:27 -0600 Cam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tempfailing is also useful for whipping on known spamsites. I never
outright blocked them, but would instead consistantly reject 99% of
messages (all except destined for abuse/root/postmaster/etc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Les wrote on 01/31/2007 03:52:58 PM:
Is 'your' queue better than everyone else's? Why not do a 4xx tmpfail
if your address check temporarily fails? Any real MTA should be
prepared to queue and retry.
Why bother even having a backup MX if all it will do is return a
John wrote:
That's why I (at work) have a hot mailserver off to the side to become a
smart host for AOL mail. I'll be damned if I'll wait to get out of
their list if they wish to play them games
Yup, I have a dedicated server that gets all outbound aol, yahoo, or
hotmail traffic. Hot
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
If you can't reject during the initial SMTP phase, then your NDR's of
spam,
with their possible forged envelope addresses, will also be spam. So,
if you
can't drop at the initial conversation, or it is relayed from a backup
MX, it
is your message, and your problem. Just
Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:39 AM -0500 "David F. Skoll"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I think blocking port 25 by default is an excellent idea
providing you unblock it if people ask for that. Since the vast
majority of computer users never bother to change de
Kees Theunissen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote:
The choices you have (for both spam and viruses) are:
0) Do nothing (just let the mail flow and be delivered)
1) Mark spam or Clean viruses, and Deliver (let the user deal with it via user
initiated filters and practices)
2
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Monday, January 29, 2007 9:05 AM -0500 David Koski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone have some thoughts on a better way to detect this type of
forwarded
spam and just out right reject just plain bad email from a known good
source?
My practice is to accept and disc
What happens if you only accept 1 recipient (in filter_recipient) per
message, and tempfail all of the others?
In theory, this should cause every message that gets to the body filters
to have 1 recipient, and thus there should be no conflict between
anti-spam settings, right?
dick hoogendijk wrote:
Some time ago I asked about filtering unwanted words. The advice was /
is not to do it, but I still want to try.
The filter rule was something like:
if($Subject =~ m// ) {
return action_bounce("bad subject");
}
Question: do I put the unwanted words into this rule
Yizhar Hurwitz wrote:
HI.
John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/17/2007 07:11:51 PM:
Dropping without notifying _anyone_ is "an even worse practice". You
don't have to notify the sender, as long as you notify the recipient
(and visa versa).
Which is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is just another piece of annoying email in the inbox. Why bother
removing the spam if your just going to deliver a message held email in
its place?
Ever heard of a quarantine report?
___
NOTE: If there is a discla
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Accepting a message that your own scanners say contains
spam/virus/bad-content, and then crafting a bounce message for it
instead of delivering it, is a bad practice and should never be done.
Dropping valid messages without notifying the sender is an even
David F. Skoll wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Does mailscanner on a relay machine have a way to check valid users
on the destination host before accepting?
I believe mailscanner is intended to be run on your actual, final MTA.
If you want to run a mailscanner machine in front of (say) M$ Exchange
Les Mikesell wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
That is why you never bounce. Reject, good -- bounce, bad!
Umm, not if you are expecting the mail system to work...
Yes, even if you are expecting the mail system to work.
Accepting a message that your own scanners say contains
spam/virus/bad-conten
David F. Skoll wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Btw: thank you for not squelching this topic. When I tried to have a
similar discussion on the MailScanner list, about a year ago, the
maintainer pretty much banned the topic from discussion (even though I
was, at the time, advocating the mixed
David F. Skoll wrote:
I'm not trying to say that MIMEDefang
is better or worse than Mailscanner. I was just trying to objectively
(as much as possible!) compare their behaviours under different
load conditions.
And I would like to second that statement. I've used both quite a bit
in both h
David F. Skoll wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
[...] This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's
socket.
Hardly any data flows over clamd's socket. MIMEDefang just sends the
command:
SCAN /path/to/filename
and clamd reads the file or files to scan itself.
Genera
Kenneth Irving wrote:
I've found Sendmail+MIMEDefang+clamd+spamd a very efficient combination.
Tried Postfix+MailScanner+clamscan in another computer and it's very slow,
because Mailscanner doesn't work as a deamon, and doesn't use Clam as a
deamon either, but relies on running clamscan for every
Kenneth Irving wrote:
Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low
email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume,
it'll work OK.
My experience is exactly the opposite. In an environment with .25M to
1M emails per day, MailScanner did just fine o
Mike Campbell wrote:
I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today
ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the
2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of
these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it wort
David F. Skoll wrote:
So blocking mail for not having a text/plain would lead to false positives.
(I'm being semi-tongue-in-cheek here, but only semi)
False positives for what?
Spam? ok.
Exploits? ok.
Useless crap from people I probably don't want email from anyway? Not
likely.
_
Philip Prindeville wrote:
As someone who occasionally contributes fixes to T-bird, I get
a little tired of adding total braindeath to multi-platform software
because of one OS that has so many security holes.
Frankly, making the message subject be the "file name" is itself "total
braindeath"
Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On Monday, December 11, 2006 20:16 + Paul Murphy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# return if ($SendmailMacros{daemon_name}) = "MSA";
You can't use arithmetic comparison on a string value: use "eq" instead:
The problem wasn't arithmetic vs string, it was assig
Scott Silva wrote:
That is why I don't score botnet as high as the default. I want the actual
mail content to contribute something to its being tagged.
That way if I get a botnet hit at say 2.0, either a bayes_99 or a hit on a
digest will send it way over. But if it hits only botnet, and nothing
Jeff Rife wrote:
So, I vote for any change to the Botnet code that ends up with my type
of situation (which is pretty much what Jan-Pieter was also describing)
not getting rejected.
Do you have a valid SPF record for your domain? One that says that host
is the right one?
I'm thinking ab
(I had a bout of insomnia last night, and got more done than I had
pre-announced yesterday...)
The next version of the Botnet plugin for Spam Assassin is ready. The
install instructions are in the Botnet.txt file, and in the INSTALL file.
For those who don't know what Botnet is, it's a plugin
Paul Murphy wrote:
John,
I'm about to start down the path of learning sa-update and using it with
MIMEDefang. Does anyone have any special tips, warnings, or even
how-to's, for how to use it with MIMEDefang?
Ensure that either you are using a version of SpamAssassin greater than 3.1.4,
or
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:32:57AM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
If either the HELO or
the envelope sender domain points back at the sending IP, it is
also allowed. Unless, of course, either of those are generic rDNS
or [] bracketed IP constructs.
If you can make the
I'm about to start down the path of learning sa-update and using it with
MIMEDefang. Does anyone have any special tips, warnings, or even
how-to's, for how to use it with MIMEDefang?
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in
Michael Sims wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Michael Sims wrote:
No biggie, my Net::DNS solution is working fine so I'll stick with
that for now.
What exactly is it that you're trying to do?
Get the PTR for the connecting relay, even if the forward and reverse lookups
don't mat
Michael Sims wrote:
No biggie, my Net::DNS solution is working fine so I'll stick with that for now.
What exactly is it that you're trying to do?
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL
1) what does MD fill in if you leave the $helo argument blank? Does it
fill in the hosts own hostname? try to send a blank? what? I have 1
mimedefang-filter that I deploy on 5 machines... it'd be nice to not
have to customize this in any way. If MD doesn't fill in a blank with
"the right
Changes in 0.5:
1) in case there's a problem with SA reading the MTA's rdns value for
the relay's hostname, Botnet will do a gethostbyaddr call _once_ per
message. This may incur a slight performance hit. You can mitigate
this by having a caching DNS server on whatever hosts are doing your
sp
Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:18 -0800 John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
If you reject messages with executable attachments first, let us know
whether the virus check catches anything at all.
There have been viruses tha
Joseph Brennan wrote:
If you reject messages with executable attachments first, let us know
whether the virus check catches anything at all.
There have been viruses that were distributed in non-executable zip
files. Simple attachment checks probably wont catch those.
__
I was thinking about moving the virus check from filter_begin to
filter_end (I do them in filter_begin, having inherited that from the
example mimedefang-filter). My reason is: it seems to me that the
attachment checks (in filter and filter_multipart) are going to be
cheaper (in CPU time and
John Rudd wrote:
Sven Schuster wrote:
Hi David,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 04:56:55PM -0500, David F. Skoll told us:
Sure. It's not written in stone that you have to use
spam_assassin_check(). If you'd rather, you can call
spam_assassin_status(),
which returns the Mail::Sp
Sven Schuster wrote:
Hi David,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 04:56:55PM -0500, David F. Skoll told us:
Sure. It's not written in stone that you have to use
spam_assassin_check(). If you'd rather, you can call spam_assassin_status(),
which returns the Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus object. You ca
header ECC_ODD_TZ Date =~
/^\s*(?:Sun|Mon|Tue|Wed|Thu|Fri|Sat)\,\s\d{1,2}\s(?:Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|Jun|
Jul|Aug|Sep|Oct|Nov|Dec)\s\d{4}\s\d{2}(?:\:\d{2}){1,2}\s[\+\-]?\d{2}[123
456789]\d$/
Shouldn't that last bit be:
[12456789]\d$/
As you've got it, it will reject an offset of xx30, which, as y
Philip Prindeville wrote:
dnl # The following causes sendmail to additionally listen to port 465, but
dnl # starting immediately in TLS mode upon connecting. Port 25 or 587 followed
dnl # by STARTTLS is preferred, but roaming clients using Outlook Express can't
dnl # do STARTTLS on ports other t
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Not sure what kind of headers Kevin (and others?) are adding, but it
might
be worth it ot check if plugins could be used in more cases.
Don't rub salt. I'm still learning how to write a plug-in for SA. I
think getting two or three done will be my New Year's Resolutio
(since I've recently mentioned this plugin on the mailscanner and
communigate pro mailing lists, as an effective means of catching spam
from botnets, I'm cross-posting this message (as well as cross-posting
it to the mimedefang mailing list)
I've changed RelayChecker's name to Botnet (since t
Dirk the Daring wrote:
Again, that's "fully-qualified domain name"..."rudd.cc" is not a
fully-qualified name.
Show me the rfc which states that rudd.cc is not a fully qualified
domain name.
For example, RFC 819 says that a name is partially qualified if it omits
common ancestors bet
Dirk the Daring wrote:
# Check #4
# If the HELO is an FQDN, the index and rindex of "." will not
be the same
# This catches the spammer using domain.tld (which will slip
# by Check #2)
if ( index($helo, ".") == rindex($helo, ".") )
{
Adam Lanier wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:24 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually, I have a better idea: If I completely remove filter_helo,
will anyone morn its passing? Less code == better, and filter_helo
is next to useless.
I won't miss it.
I wont miss it either.
_
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
static-70-21-118-207.res.east.verizon.net.
So, I've been considering moving those checks to filter_end and having
it generate tags that indicate the message should be treated as spam
instead of being rejected.
What works fine for me is to do
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
static-70-21-118-207.res.east.verizon.net.
So, I've been considering moving those checks to filter_end and having
it generate tags that indicate the message should be treated as spam
instead of being rejected.
What works fine for me is to do
John Rudd wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've taken a while to digest it for a more thorough response but
really only found one issue with the fundamental differences between
our approaches.
b) I look for elements of the IP address in the domain (or, in the
sub-domain in your
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've taken a while to digest it for a more thorough response but really
only found one issue with the fundamental differences between our
approaches.
b) I look for elements of the IP address in the domain (or, in the
sub-domain in your case).
I would recommend aga
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 00:30, John Rudd wrote:
If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
wouldn't be any MUST's.
There is absolutely no logic to your statement.
A MUST is _always_ a requirement. Even if a SHOULD is sometimes tre
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
wouldn't be any MUST's.
There is absolutely no logic to your statement.
All of your points seem "correct" and they are a better way of
interpreting the RFC that I agree with. I am, unfortunately, telling
y
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:32, John Rudd wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
By "strict interpretation", I mean "enforce all of these as MUST
directives, instead of mere SHOULD directives/suggestions".
I disagree with this statement but wo
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
use strict;
use Net::DNS;
Looks decent. I didn't use Net::DNS though (which basically just means
I don't get to specify my own timeouts ... I should probably look into
that).
The other things I do differently:
a) it's a good idea that you only search the sub-doma
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
By "strict interpretation", I mean "enforce all of these as MUST
directives, instead of mere SHOULD directives/suggestions".
I disagree with this statement but would like to have you review the
code I'm about to post. RFC's use MUST/SHOULD on purpose and you must
n
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The consensus, IMO at least but largely driven by AOL's policy, has
been that a reverse ptr that isn't blank and others as suspect is not
a completely bad idea. Here is AOL's full policy. The emphasis is mine.
a.. AOL does *require* that all connecting Mail Transfe
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:44:22AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
But:
1) to reject based on the content of the HELO string is an RFC violation
This is a blatant and oft-repeated lie. Section 4.1.4 in RFC2821 contains
very specific wording. Only an IP mismatch is
Johan Sleeuwenhoek wrote:
I'm configuring a similar setup and was wondering whether it is
possible to put it in filter_helo?
2006/9/19, Cormack, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'd like to see if anyone has any comments on an idea to block spam from
forged senders who claim my domain in the sender a
On Sep 11, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Adnet Ghislain wrote:
Of course on this list we have more educated users but done wrong you
will do much harm with autoresponder than you will help and this is my
point.
Yup. I didn't say autoresponders make everyone's lives easier. I just
said they're a usef
Hm.
1) Less than 1% of the mail that slips through my defenses is spam.
None of it it viruses. If 80% of what hits someone's autoresponder is
spam, then they're idiots.
2) autoresponders are just tools. They're neither good nor evil. They
were useful before spam, which means they are u
On Jul 16, 2006, at 2:02 AM, ML Listuser wrote:
Hello list, I'd gladly like your opinion on this.
For some days I switched sendmails loglevel to 15 and noticed that 99%
of
the spamflow is sent to me from smtp clients: PC's with names as
'pool,adsl,dynamic,..' or just an IP number. They send
On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Michael Lang wrote:
My point being: Seems rather hypocritical to complain about the lack
of
merits of the client based upon lack of RFC compliance ... while
advocating lack of RFC compliance in your server.
in my filter RFC ignorant client Mails get additiona
On Jul 10, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 09:17 -0500, Jim McCullars wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Dirk the Daring wrote:
Obviously, if I have sending hosts on my network that really
did have
non-routable addresses, this would be a possible problem (altho th
On Jun 24, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Paul Murphy wrote:
050 >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
050 >>> DATA
050 250 ok
050 354 go ahead
Actually, his transaction DOES show the 250 line.
No it doesn't - the lines are out of order, so the 250 code is in
response to
the RCPT TO command, and the
On Jun 24, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:01 PM +0900 alan premselaar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You could deliver the primary's access database to the secondary
somehow (via scp/rsync, ftp, etc. like in every 5 minutes or so, or
just when your prima
On Jun 24, 2006, at 6:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=80
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the mail is passed on by smart host but must still contain envelope
sender which is not something that can pass any type of lookup.
99% of my mail works fine its just one kind
On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Paul Murphy wrote:
I'm starting to catch on a little here I guess. In this case I
already know that ISP mail hub accepts the message. Just the verbose
output of mailx -v confirms that much.
The `follow it up with them' is probably a non starter. The ISP is
sbcg
On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Atanas wrote:
Steve Campbell said the following on 6/21/06 5:52 AM:
Same again. I would like to just use MIMEDefang to throw away invalid
users, no matter which server they enter my system on, primary or
secondary MX.
Why don't you just use sendmail to trow the
On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Steve Campbell wrote:
I would like to install MIMEDefang on both of these boxes, keeping MS
and SA, to block those backdoor secondary-MX spammers.
You should use either MIMEDefang or MailScanner, not both.
MIMEDefang and MailScanner do roughl
On Jun 20, 2006, at 7:48, David F. Skoll wrote:
The main change from 2.56 is a new scheduling algorithm that tries
to reuse the same set of slaves for a given command. That is, it
will do it's best to run all filter_relays on one set of slaves,
filter_senders on another, etc.
Do we still g
I know I _have_ to accept messages to postmaster and abuse. I'm not
questioning _that_.
But... can anyone think of a reason I _have_ to accept messages _to_
/^mailer.daemon@/i ?
I know I have to accept them _from_ mailer_daemon, and from <>, but why
_to_ mailer_daemon?
It seems that the
If anyone gets Mimedefang working with postfix, I'd love to hear about
it.
On May 17, 2006, at 0:09, Juergen Georgi wrote:
Postfix non-production snapshot postfix-2.3-20060516-milter implements
the Sendmail 8 Milter protocol.
___
NOTE: If there is
On May 15, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Peter P. Benac wrote:
I run an Apache Web Server. When I create a virtual domain I add both
the
ServerName and ServerAlias directives to each. I know IIS has a
similar
convention.
Is it a lazy user or a lazy admin?
Lazy user. Because it's not about typing, i
On May 15, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 07:43, netguy wrote:
It was described in a now-expired ietf document
draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt,
still available at:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt
This does not answer the question of how t
On May 14, 2006, at 5:53 AM, netguy wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
[snip]
Why not have:
- domain.tld have an A record (IP addr A)
- web server listens to IP addr A on a virtual network interface. (in
addition to listening to its regular IP addr on whatever other
network interface it already
On May 13, 2006, at 4:15 PM, netguy wrote:
Hi Again
I thought that I might update this thread. Lots of folks took the
time to reply and/or voice their opinions, thanks. I did not ever get
a definitive answer so I figured that I was treading on new ground;
sorta. It seems to me that nobo
On May 11, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Wilco wrote:
It does however have a connection with the correctness of the whois.
IDNL expects to be able to reach a registrant/domain holder, and
rightfully so, as I expect the same.
Well, yeah, but if the registrant/contacts aren't within the domain
(their st
On May 10, 2006, at 12:09, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:19, John Rudd wrote:
b) not having the hosts answer on port 25, or if they're shared among
multiple domains, have them refuse email directed at recipients of
that
domain.
The place this is likely to be a probl
On May 10, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
In my case, it is a problem. Outbound mail sits in my queue for
several
days trying to connect to a server that isn't responding to
connections on port
25. Whether it's a typo, or just plain a bad address, my users are
only
notified that d
On May 10, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, even properly configured MTAs will revert to the
A
record of a domain of there are no MX records available. (although I
haven't done any real research to back up this statement recently so I
could be completely off base)
On May 4, 2006, at 4:22, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Jeff Rife wrote:
If my ISP mail server allowed me to use my domain as a return address
in e-mail that is passed through it, this would be a good solution.
It
doesn't, and neither do most ISPs. So, you'll never get my e-mail
You know, you don't necessarily have to switch ISP's. There are quite
a few virtual hosting companies out there (I don't have any off the top
of my head). For just a few $/mo, you get a self-managed virtual host
where you can set up and run whatever web or mail service you want.
I've consi
(this is going a little off topic ... but ... )
On May 3, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Ben Kamen wrote:
I had a problem with my DSL line from SBC
When I moved from Santa Cruz to San Jose, I found out my new house
wasn't going to be within the Covad area of coverage ... so I'd have to
leave Speakeasy.n
On May 3, 2006, at 5:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
For what it's worth, this is my code to detect a likely-looking dynamic
IP address, based on the PTR record.
and, here's my filter_sender (where I do my similar checks) ...
sub filter_sender {
my ($sender, $ip, $hostname, $helo) = @_;
On May 3, 2006, at 12:13 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
I hate this banning of dynamic addresses right away. Sure, there is no
(at least not known to me) way to know, whether the host with a
dynamic address is an badly or well configured end-user system,
That's actually not the issue for me. Whe
On May 1, 2006, at 15:06, David F. Skoll wrote:
Chris Myers wrote:
Instead of a command-line option to disable it, how about adding:
1) sub filter_headers() that is called before the body is even sent by
sendmail to mimedefang, and
2) sub filter_undecoded() that is called before the body is
Any chance for a command-line/rc file option to turn off mime decoding?
(and thus disable filter and filter_multipart since there wont be any
per-attachment checks)
The point being that if you're doing your virus and filename checks
elsewhere, why not cut your CPU costs to a minimum? Since
In filter and filter_multipart, I'm trying to add a header with the
filename for each attachment ... the problem, though, is that not all
of the mime parts are attachments. Messages coming in with text/html
for the body, for example, are getting a blank header added to them
(because there's
On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:57 PM, Mark van Proctor wrote:
Hi,
Excuse my ignorance (I'm new to this...), but what is the difference
between
filter_helo and filter_relay?
My assumption is that helo is used when a client directly logs in
through
SMTP to send an email (generally a local user, so m
On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:34, nathan r. hruby wrote:
- ratware infected boxen on campus use campus relays which relay by IP.
They spew, we queue. Badness for everyone.
We no longer have our student-residential IP block in our relay domain
for this reason. They were, by far, our biggest sour
On Apr 20, 2006, at 9:49, David F. Skoll wrote:
The ones who use "legitimate" mail relays will get past greylisting
and greet_pause. The more sophisticated ones *DO* have essentially
unlimited resources. So, some recipients throttle one of my zombie
computers
to sending an e-mail every 5 sec
On Apr 20, 2006, at 7:58 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Kenneth Porter wrote:
I'm beginning to favor the idea of challenge/response systems, but
only
for "rich" content (ie. anything not pure text/plain).
Intriguing... I normally hate C/R systems, but that might be a good
idea.
Anything to ma
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Or else should I add logic to skip this test in mimedefang-filter
(for filter_helo()) when authentication is set?
That sounds like a good idea. Sendmail sets a macro for
authenticat
On Apr 14, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Martin Blapp wrote:
Anyone interested should keep an eye on it - it really helps
with the image only spam we get today. But problably the spammers
will soon change their tricks to different images which are more
difficult to read :-(
I can see it now ... pretty s
On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Richard A Nelson wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, March 31, 2006 9:32 AM -0400 "Oliver Schulze L."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nice option to sendmail. I think it would be nice if sendmail can
run as
a normal user, given the recen
On Mar 14, 2006, at 1:20 AM, Thomas Tinglum wrote:
Hi
Is it possible to make sendmail/mimedefang accept the entire mail
before processing it ? (with mimedefang)
Sending a mail with mimedefang enabled takes aprox 2 sec (guess this
is caused by processing), with mimedefang disabled the mail is
For the IP-only HELO, or for HELO addresses you don't like, why not
reject it during filter_helo? That's when I do it (though, I don't
think I'm doing it for IP-only HELO's, I'm just doing it for obviously
stupid HELO's, like ones that claim to be from my own domain when the
IP addr isn't in
On Sep 30, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On Friday, September 30, 2005 9:47 -0400 "McKinlay, Ken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings,
I am hoping for either a simple sendmail or Mimedefang solution for a
group of invalid addresses being used for joe-jobs. It appears that
o
On Sep 28, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Anton Kudris wrote:
Hello.
What I wanted to do with mimedefang is to add special recipient to all
emails which size >= 5MB
for example I have [EMAIL PROTECTED] If there's 10MB incoming
email I whant it to be passed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] along with
original recipient
On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:13 PM, John Rudd wrote:
Does anything need to happen after "replace_entire_message()", in
filter_end, in order to make the message get delivered?
I'm doing this in my filter_end (on my test servers):
# set up $warning variable
$newentity
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
