Nick Howitt wrote:
OK. Let's assume I don't have an MX Backup. Then all 30k+ attempted spam
deliveries would have come straight to me. They would all have failed,
initially because of unknown recipient, then, when I added them to the
access list, because of an denied sender. What is the most ef
On 12 Jan 2019, at 15:58, Nick Howitt wrote:
On 12/01/2019 16:42, @lbutlr wrote:
On 12 Jan 2019, at 07:52, Nick Howitt wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have access to the MX Backup service. It is
provided by my DNS provider.
Honestly, you should not have an MX server outside of your control.
If
On 12/01/2019 21:58, Nick Howitt wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2019 16:42, @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2019, at 07:52, Nick Howitt wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I don't have access to the MX Backup service. It is
>>> provided by my DNS provider.
>> Honestly, you should not have an MX server outside of your con
Nick Howitt skrev den 2019-01-12 21:58:
efficient way of blocking these messages? Can they be blocked earlier
than smtpd_sender_restrictions?
:
check valid recipient BEFORE valid senders
qq.com have SPF use it, if SPF is pass block this sender domain if its
spam, report to qq.com and hope th
On 12/01/2019 16:42, @lbutlr wrote:
On 12 Jan 2019, at 07:52, Nick Howitt wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have access to the MX Backup service. It is provided by
my DNS provider.
Honestly, you should not have an MX server outside of your control.
If your server is routinely down for several
On 12/01/2019 11:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
>
> Is there anything further I can do to cut down or stop this spam? Also are
> there more effective blocks I can do to
> lighten the load on the server and reduce traffic?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
If you are troubled by Chinese hosts, you might also lik
On 12 Jan 2019, at 6:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
I have a mail server and two backup MX servers and most of the mail is
arriving via one of the backup servers.
Your first step should be to seriously interrogate that architectural
choice.
When variable-priority MXs were devised, the Internet was
On 12 Jan 2019, at 07:52, Nick Howitt wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have access to the MX Backup service. It is provided by
> my DNS provider.
Honestly, you should not have an MX server outside of your control.
If your server is routinely down for several days, then you shouldn't be
running y
Hi,
if you implement Mailscanner etc you can assign a higher score based
on a header containing 163.com. Maybe that would work.
In any case everyone uses either mailscanner or rspamd on top of postfix.
You can try one of those
As John suggested and its my personal experience also that, If you
have
On 12/01/2019 15:52, Nick Howitt wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2019 14:47, John Fawcett wrote:
>> restrictions only for inbound email on port 25 they may block some badly
>> configured servers, but I don't think its a big issue. YMMV. I'd
>> configure the backup server as far as possible with the same
>> r
On 12/01/2019 14:47, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/01/2019 15:23, Nick Howitt wrote:
On 12/01/2019 11:43, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/01/2019 12:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
Hi all,
Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
under control. This week has gone mental. So far t
On 12/01/2019 14:23, Nick Howitt wrote:
On 12/01/2019 11:43, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/01/2019 12:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
Hi all,
Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
received 29860 connectio
On 12/01/2019 15:23, Nick Howitt wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2019 11:43, John Fawcett wrote:
>> On 12/01/2019 12:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
>>> under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
>>> received
On 12/01/2019 11:43, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/01/2019 12:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
Hi all,
Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
received 29860 connection attempts form {some_random_number}@qq.com
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 11:10, Nick Howitt wrote:
> Hi all,
> Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
> under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
> received 29860 connection attempts form {some_random_number}@qq.com to
> {the_same_random_number
On 12/01/2019 12:09, Nick Howitt wrote:
> Hi all,
> Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
> under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
> received 29860 connection attempts form {some_random_number}@qq.com to
> {the_same_random_number}@howitts.c
Hi all,
Until recently I did not receive too much spam and had it pretty-much
under control. This week has gone mental. So far this week I have
received 29860 connection attempts form {some_random_number}@qq.com to
{the_same_random_number}@howitts.co.uk.
I have a mail server and two backup MX
17 matches
Mail list logo
