Chris Myers wrote:
> Greylisting only delays mail the first time you see a
> sender/recipient pair, all subsequent messages from/to that same pair
> are accepted immediately. You can always write your greylisting code
> so that you don't reject for the first week or two and THEN turn on
> tempfails
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Chris Myers wrote:
> If you get mail from different people most of the time, greylisting will
> slow things down. If you get mail from substantially the same group of
> people all the time, it's *perfect*.
If you assign a second IP address and name to your mail server
(possi
- Original Message -
From: "Brian McGraw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Need advise on how to proceed.
> >Yesterday we had such an attack. 32000 connects from ~ 1000 hosts in the
&
Hello,
Yesterday we had such an attack. 32000 connects from ~ 1000 hosts in the
net, sending each one mail with 32 recipient. Imagine what happens if you
accept all the mails and you send bounces ... Bye bye server ...
This is pretty much we where are. I'd love to implement greylisting,
but it
Hi,
> Back in the day, you wouldn't return a 5xx code on invalid recipients
> since that would make it very easy for spammers to build a "good" and a
> "bad" email list. Thus making their operations much more efficient at the
> cost of bandwidth and CPU cycles on our mail server. Is this no lon
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David F. Skoll wrote:
> You **MUST** configure your mail network to reject invalid recipients
> with a 5xx code at the MX server. The good old days of having a gateway
> machine that lacks knowledge of valid internal addresses are gone; such
> an architecture is unsustainable
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Now if we can just convince webmasters to allow "+" in their email forms,
> so we can use throwaway addresses without multiplying the list of valid
> recipients. I run into too many form writers who restrict the allowed
> characters in addresses too muc
--On Friday, June 11, 2004 11:37 AM -0400 "David F. Skoll"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You **MUST** configure your mail network to reject invalid recipients
with a 5xx code at the MX server. The good old days of having a gateway
machine that lacks knowledge of valid internal addresses are gone; s
David,
David F. Skoll wrote:
Did you read the list archive? See:
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2004-June/022774.html
Thanks for the reply, and addressing my questions, even though they were
somewhat OT. Funny thing is that I've been searching the archive for
such a solu
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Brian McGraw wrote:
> 1. When does the DNSRBL checking happen?
> I've integrated the checks into Sendmail, not MD or SA.
Either at connection time or RCPT time, depending on the "delay_checks"
feature.
> 2. Do the DNSRBL checks happen before, or do they prevent, Sendmail fro
If you're using sendmail and it's the main mail server (not a gateway for
exchange), sendmail sends out a log message warning of a RCPT TO: flood (typical
of people trying to send to too many recipt's at once.)
I have a script that watches the log file and instantly (it runs all the time
and is
Hello list,
I need some advise on how to proceed. My organization has been getting
crushed by dictionary (or Rumplestiltskin, if you will) attacks. Up
until about two weeks ago, the situation was manageable. But now, the
volume of traffic is growing out of control. The attacks are beginning
12 matches
Mail list logo
