>>> 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
>>>
>>> This morning, I changed the crontab "time /usr
Florian Fuessl wrote:
Frank Bax wrote:
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
This morning, I changed the crontab "time /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -d"
4.
Frank Bax wrote:
>
> 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
>
> This morning, I changed the crontab "time /usr/libexec/spamd-s
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:26:07AM -0800, Robert Carr wrote:
>
> /var/log/spamd shows activity of hosts being
> grey-trapped, marked as (BLACK) or (GREY); spamdb
> shows trapped and white hosts.
>
> However, 'pfctl -t spamd -T show' shows nothing in the
> t
On 2008/01/07 01:26, Robert Carr wrote:
> However, 'pfctl -t spamd -T show' shows nothing in the
> table
That's normal for 4.2 (unless you use spamd's blacklist-only mode)
I think my pf / spamd config is correct and running
well, but I'm not entirely sure and would appreciate
any suggestions, corrections or optimizations.
/var/log/spamd shows activity of hosts being
grey-trapped, marked as (BLACK) or (GREY); spamdb
shows trapped and white hosts.
However, &
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 sol
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 sol
"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 loca
"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
Hi,
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 is
recommende
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 def
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 to any
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 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 of evaluations
o-quick-answer ;P
No problem. 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
> | loca
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
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 greytr
. 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.
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. H
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
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 "
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.openbs
* 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 sing
> > 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&#
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 opt
FYI - limits on spamd-setup when importing blacklists
Playing around with 4.2,
and although spamd in grey mode no longer uses 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 use
> I'm not 100% certain I'm "get"ting 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:
&g
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,
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.
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 connections
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 toget
e recipient's mail server. The problem is,
if the recipient's mail 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&#
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
I'm not 100% certain I'm "get"ting 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. Ple
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.
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
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
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-i
--- 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.
>
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.
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
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I tried it but whenever I include the larger 'uatraps' I get:
Look at set limit table-entries.
man pf
--- 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 ab
e able to communicate with the people who built my laptop!
- Peter
--
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.
years 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.g
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--
--- 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 sh
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
> $ sudo /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -d
> Getti
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
$ sudo pfctl -t spamd -T flush
7070 addresses deleted.
$ sudo pfctl -t spamd -T show | wc -l
0
$ sudo /usr/libexec/spamd-setup
--- 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 imm
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.
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:
&
--- 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 gre
--- 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
> > whitel
--- "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.
>
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 black
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-s
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).
But
{ 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
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
check your pf rules.
>
>
> * Juan Miscaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-13 09:38]:
> > 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 ha
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 l
ail 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 ide
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
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
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
snowcrash+openbsd writes:
> > 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?
Well, I see you quoted from a private message I sent, and a selected
quote at that. While noting tha
> 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 t
* 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 r
> 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 sp
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.,
>
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 seco
> 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,
> 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 p
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&quo
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
]>
WHITE|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 ki
> 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 differen
* 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
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.
D
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
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 opt
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
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 to port 25 \
-> 127.0.0.1 p
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.
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
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
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 to port 25 \
-> 127.0.0.1 port 8025
rdr pass on $ext
; -Original Message-
> From: [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 th
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 cha
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
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 sta
e Edition - 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
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" a
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
> wor
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 deli
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
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
Hello Folks,
I'm running into an issue where a tuple gets white listed, but the next
smtp connection results in 2 entries: one that is whitelisted and
another one that is grey listed. Thus, the email is never sent. This
doesn't happen for all emails, only for one, in particular. We have set
our
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, Jac
801 - 900 of 1547 matches
Mail list logo
