On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 03:59:10AM +0200, Martin Braun wrote:
> IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
> It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
> not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
Server filtering save
> you can very easily tell what should or should not be flagged for review
> with the most granular rules, anything with virus attachments should NEVER
> get to the user, period, ever. Id rather have 100 false positives for
> viruses than my network get turned into a zombie because I threw my users
forgot the list sorry,
you can very easily tell what should or should not be flagged for review
with the most granular rules, anything with virus attachments should NEVER
get to the user, period, ever. Id rather have 100 false positives for
viruses than my network get turned into a zombie because I
> In theroy that idea isnt even that great, and in practice a hygene server is
> a better place to do the most course obvious spam. There is stuff that is
> very obviously not wanted such as items coming from rouge servers that we
> can prove thanks to SPF or Sender-ID being setup correctly.
Valid
I agree, it's not simple, but none the less it is true.
However I wouldn't waste time on reading or answering mail on my
phone. If you receive really important email, and you need to answer
such on the phone, you need to use a unique email just for such
clients - making sure no spam reaches you at
In theroy that idea isnt even that great, and in practice a hygene server
is a better place to do the most course obvious spam. There is stuff that
is very obviously not wanted such as items coming from rouge servers that
we can prove thanks to SPF or Sender-ID being setup correctly. There is no
re
On 2014-05-01 03:59, Martin Braun wrote:
> IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
> It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
> not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
>
What if I have multiple clients? Eg: de
IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
2014-04-26 16:26 GMT+02:00 Stéphane Guedon :
> Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:20:19, vous ave
there isnt a single one, but you have to do it somthing similar to what
gilles did for dkim dkim.
so you chose somthing like in my case I use amavisd since I never got
spampd to work reliably listening on port 2000
listen on lo port 2001 tag clean
accept tagged clean for deliver to mbox
accept for
Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:51:42, vous avez écrit :
> you want to use SPF at the very least, but then back it
> with spampd or amavisd and run it though spamassassin
> that is pretty much a standard stack right there,
I tried to set it up yesterday.
Complete failed !
I would really like to have s
Hi Stéphane,
At 07:26 26-04-2014, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
I am myself in need for a good antispam solution with opensmtpd.
if dkim (which I don't use yet) and spf are not really working, what's
the good way (I am already using spamd, not enough !)
I assume that you are looking for software whic
you want to use SPF at the very least, but then back it
with spampd or amavisd and run it though spamassassin
that is pretty much a standard stack right there,
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:20:19, vous avez écrit :
> > Hi John,
> >
> > At 06
Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:20:19, vous avez écrit :
> Hi John,
>
> At 06:04 26-04-2014, John Cox wrote:
> >Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
> >much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
> >the message before receiving it so you wouldn't ha
Hi John,
At 06:04 26-04-2014, John Cox wrote:
Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
the message before receiving it so you wouldn't have the DKIM stuff
(which I think requires you to have the entire m
>
> Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
> much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
> the message before receiving it so you wouldn't have the DKIM stuff
> (which I think requires you to have the entire message?
How about I try this again
On 2014-04-26 Sat 14:04 PM |, John Cox wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
> much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
> the message before receiving it
>
That's the idea, but it is often abused by dumb hostmasters (e.g:
google)
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:55:48 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ashish SHUKLA wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun
>> said:
>> > Hi
>>
>> > I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
>> > have previously run with those, but I am
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ashish SHUKLA wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun
> said:
> > Hi
>
> > I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
> > have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
>
> > I am thinking about the "worth" of those
Hi
>On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun
>said:
>> Hi
>
>> I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
>> have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
>
>> I am thinking about the "worth" of those technologies?
>
>> I used to think SPF was a good idea, b
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun
said:
> Hi
> I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
> have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
> I am thinking about the "worth" of those technologies?
> I used to think SPF was a good idea, but SPF fails i
Le samedi 19 avril 2014, 11:29:52 Craig R. Skinner a écrit :
> On 2014-04-19 Sat 08:26 AM |, Martin Braun wrote:
> > I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as
> > I
> > have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
> >
> > I am thinking about the "worth" of those techn
On 2014-04-19 Sat 08:26 AM |, Martin Braun wrote:
>
> I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
> have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
>
> I am thinking about the "worth" of those technologies?
>
OK for sending, waste of time for receiving validation.
SP
Hi Martin,
On 19 Apr 2014 08:26, Martin Braun wrote:
> And I don't know if DKIM signing is "really" necessary.
>From my experience, most reputable mail sources already use DKIM and
SPF. By implementing these into your setup, your mail will gain some extra
points so as to get past spam filters in
Hi
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am thinking about the "worth" of those technologies?
I used to think SPF was a good idea, but SPF fails if someone forwards
email to another server. Then the forwarding ser
24 matches
Mail list logo
