Florian Fuessl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm running spamd-setup via regular cronjob every 20 minutes. Sometimes the
spamd-setup process seems to hang and does not finish within this period,
although all black- and whitelists are local files.
I would try to figure out why the process stalls
Peter N. M. Hansteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running spamd-setup via regular cronjob every 20 minutes. Sometimes
the
spamd-setup process seems to hang and does not finish within this period,
although all black- and whitelists are local files.
I would try to figure out why the process
Florian Fuessl wrote:
I'm running spamd-setup via regular cronjob every 20 minutes. Sometimes the
spamd-setup process seems to hang and does not finish within this period,
although all black- and whitelists are local files.
Is there a way define timeouts for tasks of spamd-setup? What solution
Frank Bax [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My spamd-setup always takes 20-30 minutes on two servers (4.1 and
4.2). This is not normal? When I run it manually; most of the time is
spent downloading traplist.gz
I guess I must stop complaining about my line speeds, then. My sole
remaining 4.1 box
Hi,
I posted a question earlier, but I guess I was not clear.
I have a firewall running OpenBSD 4.2 and SPAMD to block spams.
I would like to know how many legitimate email messages SPAMD
is letting in. The default spamd setup that comes in pf.conf is
no rdr on $ext_if proto tcp from spamd
On December 22, 2007 05:47:56 am Jeff Santos wrote:
Hi,
I posted a question earlier, but I guess I was not clear.
I have a firewall running OpenBSD 4.2 and SPAMD to block spams.
I would like to know how many legitimate email messages SPAMD
is letting in. The default spamd setup that comes
Hi,
Is it possible to know how many SMTP legitimate SMTP connections
have passed through SPAMD?
In a setup like,
no rdr on $ext_if proto tcp from spamd-white to any port smtp
rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port smtp \
- 127.0.0.1 port spamd
Can I assume the number
Hello,
I am running OpenBSD 4.2-stable
I just noticed that spamd is trying to send ack packets from 127.0.0.1 to the IP
of the sender when it hits the greytrap IP. I don't feel this is wanted
behavior. Has anymone any idea of why it is doing so? It doesn't seem to be due
to the set skip on lo
Renaud Allard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just noticed that spamd is trying to send ack packets from 127.0.0.1 to the
IP
of the sender when it hits the greytrap IP. I don't feel this is wanted
behavior. Has anymone any idea of why it is doing so?
ACK packets are part of any two-way TCP/IP
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
Renaud Allard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just noticed that spamd is trying to send ack packets from 127.0.0.1 to
the IP
of the sender when it hits the greytrap IP. I don't feel this is wanted
behavior. Has anymone any idea of why it is doing so?
ACK packets
1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:24:03PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
| Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
| Renaud Allard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| I just noticed that spamd is trying to send ack packets from 127.0.0.1 to
the IP
| of the sender when it hits the greytrap IP. I don't feel
setup), pf redirects incoming
| requests to 127.0.0.1:8025, the port where spamd is listening *on
| localhost*. Replies such as ACK's etc. *MUST* originate from
| 127.0.0.1:8025 in this case. PF will take care of rewriting the packet
| to the address the client originally used to contact your
. The firewall admin told me he was blocking packets from 127.0.0.1
originating from the antispam servers.
| I doubt it. In general (the recommended setup), pf redirects incoming
| requests to 127.0.0.1:8025, the port where spamd is listening *on
| localhost*. Replies such as ACK's etc. *MUST
I'm running spamd in blacklist mode, and it started running out of
memory today. It turns out the lists are getting close to the default
limit:
# /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -b -d
Getting http://www.openbsd.org/spamd/traplist.gz
blacklist uatraps 157348 entries
Getting http://www.openbsd.org
* Tom Bombadil [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-31 12:21]:
Probably Bad things.
Oh-oh... I increased it to 2 minutes. Thing are a bit better now.
Shouldn't be. What rev of openbsd are you running this spamd box on?
I run it on a single ide drive, I'm probably bigger than your site
Olli Hauer wrote:
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
swapped out a spamd host last night and ended up doing some ksh
scripting to get the spamdb up to date on the new machine. also have
connected the old host with the new one using the sync (-y -Y)
options for spamd and spamlogd, and these options
Just copy /var/db/spamd from the old to the new host, so you get all other
information as well (WHITE, SPAMTRAP, GREY, expire records).
Can i reliably copy /var/db/spamd while spamd/spamlogd are still running
or must they be stopped first?
The code sync's the database after each change
FYI - limits on spamd-setup when importing blacklists
Playing around with 4.2,
and although spamd in grey mode no longer uses spamd table,
it still choked with a 'malloc' error when I used the CBL list
as a file in /etc/mail/spamd.conf
Since the CBL list is over 5 million lines, I used split
Rob wrote:
You're right, then. If I explicitly block inbound connections to the
outbound mail server (instead of redirecting them), that might fix the
problem ... depending on just what kind of check the recipient's mail
server is doing.
A sending MTA is not required to accept SMTP
hmm, on Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:50:41PM -0700, Rob said that
We just ran across an odd intermittent problem with email that we
traced back to spamd showing up as an open relay. I double-checked the
documentation and mailing list archives and didn't find anything
relevant.
dnsstuff.com
hmm, on Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:22:23AM +0200, frantisek holop said that
dnsstuff.com is great to have a look what an admin
left out/forgot/doesn't know :D
i was quite dismayed too when it showed me as an open relay...
(http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=obiit.org)
sorry,
I'm not 100% certain I'm getting your idea here ... we do currently
run inbound/outbound mail on different IPs, but the problem isn't with
the connections themselves.
From the example session transcript with spamd that I posted earlier:
250 Hello, spam sender. Pleased to be wasting your
Hey guys,
We just ran across an odd intermittent problem with email that we
traced back to spamd showing up as an open relay. I double-checked the
documentation and mailing list archives and didn't find anything
relevant.
Our mail server is bara.nccn.net, 12.165.58.50. There is a
bump
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Rob wrote:
We just ran across an odd intermittent problem with email that we
traced back to spamd showing up as an open relay. I double-checked the
documentation and mailing list archives and didn't find anything
relevant.
Please let us know what service (if different
Hi Jeremy,
On 9/25/07, Jeremy C. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Rob wrote:
We just ran across an odd intermittent problem with email that we
traced back to spamd showing up as an open relay. I double-checked the
documentation and mailing list archives and didn't find
On 2007/09/25 14:50, Rob wrote:
Is there some configuration for spamd that I've missed
You could run inbound and outbound email on different IP addresses,
and don't accept incoming port 25 connections on the address used as
a source for outgoing mail.
I'm not 100% certain I'm getting your idea here ... we do currently
run inbound/outbound mail on different IPs, but the problem isn't with
the connections themselves.
From the example session transcript with spamd that I posted earlier:
250 Hello, spam sender. Pleased to be wasting your time
On 2007/09/25 17:35, Rob wrote:
Since this is happening during the conversation with our inbound mail
server, I don't see how filtering connections between our inbound and
outbound mail servers would fix it.
From what you say, it sounds like your outbound mail server sends
mail to some host
server is performing an on-the-fly check, then
its connection back to our outbound mail server would automatically be
redirected to our inbound mail server, which gets intercepted by
spamd, which appears to be the open relay.
You're right, then. If I explicitly block inbound connections to the
outbound
On 9/26/07, Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I agree. It's the wrong way for them to check for an open relay,
but it is still causing a bit of a problem.
Well if it is actually caused by spamd you have 2 options:
a) not run spamd.
b) ask them to get their shit together and hope they actually
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:17AM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I'm running OpenBSD 4.0 and I'm having trouble loading my spamd
blacklist table with spamd-setup:
$ sudo pfctl -t spamd -T show | wc -l
7070
SNIP
$ sudo /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -d
Getting http://www.openbsd.org/spamd
--- Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:17AM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I'm running OpenBSD 4.0 and I'm having trouble loading my spamd
blacklist table with spamd-setup:
$ sudo pfctl -t spamd -T show | wc -l
7070
SNIP
$ sudo /usr/libexec/spamd
Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.openbsd.org/spamd/spews_list_level1.txt.gz
Fetching that one with wget gets me a file with its timestamp in
February, which probably means that it's no longer maintained and by
now it's useless:
$ ls -l *txt.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 peter peter
ago, but IMO, now most of the
world is numb to them, not just China and Korea.
-Bob
* Peter N. M. Hansteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-19 11:53]:
Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.openbsd.org/spamd/spews_list_level1.txt.gz
Fetching that one with wget gets
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
--- Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
spews has been dead for a while. this is why with
recent releases of openbsd, we don't include it in the example
files anymore - spews started taking a tack of basically
including every ISP on the planet, since only big companies
should be able to
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I tried it but whenever I include the larger 'uatraps' I get:
Look at set limit table-entries.
man pf
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:16:32PM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I tried it but whenever I include the larger 'uatraps' I get:
pfctl: Cannot allocate memory.
I have plenty of free memory and cpu. Not sure why it's breaking up.
man pf.conf(5). look for table-entries
-ME
On 2007/09/19 18:16, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I tried it but whenever I include the larger 'uatraps' I get:
pfctl: Cannot allocate memory.
use 4.1 or newer spamd, don't use blacklist only mode.
--- Mike Erdely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:16:32PM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I tried it but whenever I include the larger 'uatraps' I get:
pfctl: Cannot allocate memory.
I have plenty of free memory and cpu. Not sure why it's breaking
up.
man
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts).
But not dynamic blacklisting
Juan Miscaro wrote:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:30:45AM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo
Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
That could have been due to too little information.
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd
--- Peter N. M. Hansteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
That could have been due to too little information.
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting
--- Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and
dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup
--- Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:30:45AM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
{ This is a resend. No replies after 24 hours }
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and
dynamic
whitelisting. Static
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/09/18 13:48, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I _am_ using blacklists with spamd-setup and I _did_ check the
blacklisted hosts immediately after seeing the message. Perhaps my
command is messed up:
sudo pfctl -t spamd -T
On 2007/09/18 13:48, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I _am_ using blacklists with spamd-setup and I _did_ check the
blacklisted hosts immediately after seeing the message. Perhaps my
command is messed up:
sudo pfctl -t spamd -T show | grep 65.216.123.37
yes, most blacklists use cidr prefixes.
--- Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/09/18 13:48, Juan Miscaro wrote:
I _am_ using blacklists with spamd-setup and I _did_ check the
blacklisted hosts immediately after seeing the message. Perhaps
my
Running OBSD 4.0 here.
I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts).
But not dynamic blacklisting.
I occasionally get log messages like:
spamd
My OpenBSD 4.0 mail filter (running amavisd-new) has been up and
running well for 70 days. I received a complaint of delays this
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I verified that spamlogd is still running.
Does anyone have any ideas how
Juan Miscaro wrote:
My OpenBSD 4.0 mail filter (running amavisd-new) has been up and
running well for 70 days. I received a complaint of delays this
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I verified that spamlogd is still running.
Does
Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I verified that spamlogd is still running.
Does anyone have any ideas how this could have happened?
Whitelist entries do expire after a while (a little more
-new) has been up and
running well for 70 days. I received a complaint of delays this
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I verified that spamlogd is still running.
Does anyone have any ideas how this could have happened?
- Juan
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:29:02AM -0400, Juan Miscaro wrote:
My OpenBSD 4.0 mail filter (running amavisd-new) has been up and
running well for 70 days. I received a complaint of delays this
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I
:38]:
My OpenBSD 4.0 mail filter (running amavisd-new) has been up and
running well for 70 days. I received a complaint of delays this
morning. Indeed, I see that servers which had been whitelisted by
spamd were no longer so. I verified that spamlogd is still
running.
Does anyone have
hi,
No, that's not what passtime means, and not how spamd works either.
(Read the man page for details;
i did read the manual. and have questions. which is why i'm here.
passtime has to do with the time between subsequent connects,
*PER* the manual,
After passtime minutes if spamd sees
My question is about using spamd to GREYTRAP, but not GREYLIST.
spamd doesn't do that. because it needs to look at the address
in order to trap. it does this offline after one delay. It is not written
to do instantaneous type trapping, because your MTA can do that.
-Bob
hi,
it does this offline after one delay
well, fair enough, then.
what, then, is the MINIMUM value of that delay?
1 minute is obviouly OK.
*is* zero delay code functional (does it *break* anything)? i.e.,
the second attempt (after one zero delay ...) is passed?
afaict, delays in seconds
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:31:31AM -0700, snowcrash+openbsd wrote:
it does this offline after one delay
well, fair enough, then.
what, then, is the MINIMUM value of that delay?
1 minute is obviouly OK.
*is* zero delay code functional (does it *break* anything)? i.e.,
the second
You *do* understand that the second attempt can occur at any random time
of the sending MTA's choice, or even never?
Yes. Irrelevant.
I'm asking about spamd's behavior. Not the sender's.
Just use your MTA's built-in features.
One can do EVERYTHING spamd does with the MTA ... It seems
* snowcrash+openbsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-11 11:41]:
hi,
it does this offline after one delay
well, fair enough, then.
what, then, is the MINIMUM value of that delay?
1 minute is obviouly OK.
Nope, because it's up to the client (the other end) how
fast he retries.
You've got the source. Why not read it and figure out the answer for
yourself?
Source being available is true for just about everything, now, isnt't it?
Surprising, then, that people ask questions ...
Thanks for all the advice to use my MTA, everyone! The pissy off-list
insults are a nice
hi,
i'd like to use 'spamd' for GREYTRAPPING only, with NO delay-via-GREYLISTING.
i.e., other than mail to defined TRAPS and fully-blacklisted domains,
no delay on inbound mmail.
looking at config, i think i can achieve that by setting passtime,
via -Gx:y:z, equal to zero.
though it seems
|194.150.112.222|||1178785311|1178788495|1192114906|4|22
spamdb: bogus size db entry - bad db file?
The db file is available for anyone who needs it to find the cause.
Currently the spamd-white pf table contains 1302 entries which my mrtg
graphs shows to be the number of entries before the db killed itself
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Alex Holst wrote:
If I wipe the db will spamd purge the spamd-white table?
Yes. spamd will replace it with:
pfctl -p /dev/pf -q -t spamd-white -T replace -f -
Jeremy C. Reed
Probably Bad things.
Oh-oh... I increased it to 2 minutes. Thing are a bit better now.
Shouldn't be. What rev of openbsd are you running this spamd box on?
I run it on a single ide drive, I'm probably bigger than your site.
Really? We get mail for different companies... Even
Hi all...
What happens if we change #define DB_SCAN_INTERVAL 60 to 600 in
/usr/src/libexec/spamd/grey.h?
Sorry, I'm no C coder...
Basically we just want to spread out table scans for now until we get
new hardware in, because it's fairly heavy on an single IDE drive.
Does DB_SCAN_INTERVAL have
* Tom Bombadil [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-30 13:56]:
Hi all...
What happens if we change #define DB_SCAN_INTERVAL 60 to 600 in
/usr/src/libexec/spamd/grey.h?
Probably Bad things.
Sorry, I'm no C coder...
Basically we just want to spread out table scans for now until we get
new
Edgars MakEa wrote:
Hi!
Some days ago spamd just started to GREY all incoming connections even
if IP address already was a WHITE.
Any ideas for waht and where to look?
OpenBSD 4.0 Generic
those ar my firewall rules:
rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from spamd to port 25 \
- 127.0.0.1
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
swapped out a spamd host last night and ended up doing some ksh
scripting to get the spamdb up to date on the new machine. also have
connected the old host with the new one using the sync (-y -Y) options
for spamd and spamlogd, and these options are working fine
Olli Hauer wrote:
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
swapped out a spamd host last night and ended up doing some ksh
scripting to get the spamdb up to date on the new machine. also have
connected the old host with the new one using the sync (-y -Y)
options for spamd and spamlogd, and these options
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
Olli Hauer wrote:
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
swapped out a spamd host last night and ended up doing some ksh
scripting to get the spamdb up to date on the new machine. also have
connected the old host with the new one using the sync (-y -Y)
options for spamd
Hi!
Some days ago spamd just started to GREY all incoming connections even
if IP address already was a WHITE.
Any ideas for waht and where to look?
OpenBSD 4.0 Generic
those ar my firewall rules:
rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from spamd to port 25 \
- 127.0.0.1 port 8025
rdr pass
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:09:49 +0300
Edgars MakEa [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake:
Hi!
Some days ago spamd just started to GREY all incoming connections even
if IP address already was a WHITE.
Any ideas for waht and where to look?
OpenBSD 4.0 Generic
those ar my firewall rules:
rdr pass
I didnt do anything, it just started do add all hosts as GREY. If i run
spamd | grep xxx.yyy.zzz.ccc i have now two entries GREY and WHITE with
same ip.
those rdr rules i need to make a transparent spamd firewall for an mx
server behind this router (i have real IP adresses not a NATted mx
server
swapped out a spamd host last night and ended up doing some ksh
scripting to get the spamdb up to date on the new machine. also have
connected the old host with the new one using the sync (-y -Y) options
for spamd and spamlogd, and these options are working fine and are quite
neat.
a couple
As far as I understand from them, the sysadmin was showing the defer to
his boss using a telnet session, and the boss got pissed off, because
they are actually very diligent about their spam policies.
Anyways, I just wanted to know if it there was another way to change the
250 messages without
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Tom Bombadil
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 02:37 PM
To: Peter Fraser
Cc: 'misc@openbsd.org'
Subject: Re: spamd - 250 return text
As far as I understand from them, the sysadmin was showing the defer to
his boss using a telnet session
On 8/4/07, Tom Bombadil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've had a pretty hard time from a client saying how rude this
default message is. Even though their tech people didn't care, the
people higher up got really offended... Quite understandably I'd say,
since these greetings aren't really what we
I think that the problem is a bad mail program at your clients,
A user should not see the 250 status, it is not a
failure of any sort but I have seen it as a return
status sent to a user.
Here is an example that I have seen from someone who sent us
a message. The message failed and this is the
Hi all,
Short of recompiling spamd, is there any undocumented way of changing
the 250 responses from spamd?
- 250 Hello, spam sender. Pleased to be wasting your time.
- 250 You are about to try to deliver spam. Your time will be spent, for
nothing.
man spamd and a quick search in the ML
On 2007/08/03 13:59, Tom Bombadil wrote:
Short of recompiling spamd, is there any undocumented way of changing
the 250 responses from spamd?
Editing the binary? (Is recompiling really so hard?)
Sorry to bug you guys with this lame problem but in the financial
world, people can be very touchy
Tom Bombadil wrote:
Hi all,
Short of recompiling spamd, is there any undocumented way of changing
the 250 responses from spamd?
- 250 Hello, spam sender. Pleased to be wasting your time.
- 250 You are about to try to deliver spam. Your time will be spent, for
nothing.
man spamd and a quick
writes Tom Bombadil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: spamd - 250 return text
...
Short of recompiling spamd, is there any undocumented way of changing
the 250 responses from spamd?
...
Sure. It's called bvi.
-Marcus Watts
On 8/3/07, Tom Bombadil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Short of recompiling spamd, is there any undocumented way of changing
the 250 responses from spamd?
- 250 Hello, spam sender. Pleased to be wasting your time.
- 250 You are about to try to deliver spam. Your time will be spent
- with sudo
defaulting to !insults, apologies from spamd, and available on exclusive
gold CDs, it's yours for a bargain donation to the project of only
$5k... (-:
I was in no way complaining about the outstanding work all the
developers are doing, but since being called a spammer is a very bad
insult
RW wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:51:33 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above,
it will not stop spam from real mail servers, whether open relays or
spam house servers. You may get to the point where you do want to add
ports
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:01:07AM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
even when running in pure greylisting mode, i get almost no spam
(assuming users are not retarded and don't whitelist bad hosts). the
only thing worth watching for is organizations that use their email as a
short lead-time
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:01:07 -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
for domains that have multiple MX records, it might be nice to have all
those IPs whitelisted when sending to that domain. maybe this is already
done or there is a reason it isn't :). guess someone could publish a
list of bogus IPs
Craig Skinner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:01:07AM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
even when running in pure greylisting mode, i get almost no spam
(assuming users are not retarded and don't whitelist bad hosts). the
only thing worth watching for is organizations that use their email
On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
heh. oh, and rod, you're right about the outbound IPs, that was my confusion
blush.
Masking on /24 in spamlogd would help with this for many sites.
qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
donc ca reste
pas fait pour moi
2007/7/24, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
heh. oh, and rod, you're right about the outbound IPs, that was my
confusion
blush.
mailing list (ror in message seems to
talk about it). It's not about spamd or openbsd (Or I don't understand
my birth language :-/ )
Sorry about this.
/except_subject
--
Yannick Pouype Francois
http://www.typouype.org
http://www.rubyfrance.org
in message seems to
talk about it). It's not about spamd or openbsd (Or I don't understand
my birth language :-/ )
Sorry about this.
/except_subject
--
Yannick Pouype Francois
http://www.typouype.org
http://www.rubyfrance.org
--
Gallon sylvestre
Astek michant / Assistant CISCO
Rathaxes Core
sorry I make a mistake and send my mail at the wrong mailling list
Le 24/07/07, syl[EMAIL PROTECTED] a icrit :
qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
donc ca reste
pas fait pour moi
2007/7/24, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jacob
On 7/23/07, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems normal enough. What I and some others have done in addition is
to add a whitelist that bypasses spamd altogether. Into that whitelist
goes gmail (host -ttxt gmail.com) and other large providers using pools
for outgoing mail.
Good
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:51:33 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above,
it will not stop spam from real mail servers, whether open relays or
spam house servers. You may get to the point where you do want to add
ports/packages). I deal
801 - 900 of 1468 matches
Mail list logo
