On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:56 +0200, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I guess I need prohibit the catch all account and offer the solution
with the delimiter instead. That way all spam to bogus email addresses
get rejected because the address does not exist.
But still I wonder if there is a way
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Of course we don't know which email addresses are valid so all mail for
the domain is accepted on our servers.
That is your problem to be fixed. Maybe this helps:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient
--
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 07:06 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Of course we don't know which email addresses are valid so all mail for
the domain is accepted on our servers.
That is your problem to be fixed. Maybe this helps:
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
This way only address verification is needed when the mail passes the
rbls en policies?
Actually, I think
On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy
services.
This way only address verification is needed when
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Mmmm, I'm using transport maps to forward mail to the final mail
server. So the verify should contact the remote server and I think
that is almost as expensive as a RBL check.
I don't think so, but am not certain... hopefully
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Mmmm, I'm using transport maps to forward mail to the final mail
server. So the verify should contact the remote server and I think
that is almost as expensive as a RBL check.
I don't think so, but am not
On 7/30/2009 10:51 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
Address verify callouts are quite time consuming, so quite expensive -
much more than an RBL lookup. However, when valid recipients are found
in the cache, the impact on mail should be very low.
Thanks for correcting me... that is good to know.
So
On Thursday 30 July 2009 07:48:25 Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
This way only address verification is needed
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57:20PM +0200 I heard the voice of
mouss, and lo! it spake thus:
I've seen many sites that refuse '+', but for now, no site that
refuses '-'.
I have entries in my alias file for several, sadly :|
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net
On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:18 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
To name one, I tried to get automobile insurance with GEICO, a large
insurer in the USA. If I had access to my old virtual_alias_maps I
could find many more who rejected the +.
ATT, Coca Cola, nearly every bank or any site for a company that is
On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I guess I need prohibit the catch all account and offer the solution
with the delimiter instead. That way all spam to bogus email
addresses get rejected because the address does not exist.
That is the best course, yes.
But still I
On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:05 PM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:18 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
To name one, I tried to get automobile insurance with GEICO, a large
insurer in the USA. If I had access to my old virtual_alias_maps I
could find many more who rejected the +.
ATT,
On Jul 28, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Some large banks use first_l...@foo.com.
What other sites use doesn't affect me. '-' is problematic because it
is sometimes part of a person's actual name. I chose '_' over '.'
because I had users who already used '.' as a first.last
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:57:20 mouss wrote:
/dev/rob0 a écrit :
Unfortunately, I have found that many Web programmers don't bother to
read RFC's and find out what characters are allowed in email addresses.
Many sites will not accept a + in your username. I think the old
default qmail
/dev/rob0 a écrit :
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:57:20 mouss wrote:
/dev/rob0 a écrit :
Unfortunately, I have found that many Web programmers don't bother to
read RFC's and find out what characters are allowed in email addresses.
Many sites will not accept a + in your username. I think the old
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:39 PM, mouss wrote:
reported this to my boss, just to hear him saying I don't want
extensions. I want _real_ addresses.
I used to have an email address (since retired into a spam magnet).
u...@example.com - All mail was fed to sa-learn --spam and reported
to spamcop.
Hi,
I'm using a couple of anti-spam techniques which successfully reject
(5xx) or ban (ipfilter firewall rule) most spam before even getting in
the queue. A couple of days ago about 2600 spam messages where delivered
to an user with a catch-all account. These messages where classified as
SPAM or
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 11:40 +0200, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Hi,
I'm using a couple of anti-spam techniques which successfully reject
(5xx) or ban (ipfilter firewall rule) most spam before even getting in
the queue. A couple of days ago about 2600 spam messages where delivered
to an user
On Monday 27 July 2009 10:40:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I'm using a couple of anti-spam techniques which successfully reject
(5xx) or ban (ipfilter firewall rule) most spam before even getting in
the queue.
You use a LOT of blacklists, which probably results in more false positives
than
On 7/27/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Are there ways to block these spam attacks?
Don't use catchalls for live/normal domains...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 10:55 +0100, Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 10:40:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I'm using a couple of anti-spam techniques which successfully reject
(5xx) or ban (ipfilter firewall rule) most spam before even getting in
the queue.
You use a LOT of
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
m...@desjors.nl
pay...@desjors.nl
deb...@desjors.nl
They could use the recipient_delimiter for
Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
m...@desjors.nl
pay...@desjors.nl
deb...@desjors.nl
etc.
Then they use their mail client to filter the messages and put
On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:18 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 05:47:29 Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my
customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
m...@desjors.nl
pay...@desjors.nl
deb...@desjors.nl
They
On Monday 27 July 2009 13:52:07 Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
/dev/rob0 a écrit :
Unfortunately, I have found that many Web programmers don't bother to
read RFC's and find out what characters are allowed in email addresses.
Many sites will not accept a + in your username. I think the old
default qmail delimiter, -, is a better choice for those just now
Charles Sprickman a écrit :
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
m...@desjors.nl
29 matches
Mail list logo
