Hi all!
I have a fairly standard set of smtpd restrictions implemented and generally
I’m very happy with them (very low spam traffic and no headaches associated
with SpamAssassin or DSPAM).
However, once in a while a legitimate message is rejected because the other
side has misconfigured HELO
On 1/16/2015 1:36 PM, Eugene R wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I have a fairly standard set of smtpd restrictions implemented and
> generally I’m very happy with them (very low spam traffic and no
> headaches associated with SpamAssassin or DSPAM).
> However, once in a while a legitimate message is rejected
Hi Noel,
-Original Message-
From: Noel Jones
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:29 PM
If you're rejecting good mail more than "rarely", you should
reevaluate your restrictions.
In particular, most built-in HELO checks are likely to reject legit
mail, and not terribly effective again
On 1/16/2015 2:48 PM, Eugene R wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you're trying to recreate deep inspection in postfix.
>> Use SpamAssassin instead.
>
> Absolutely no deep inspection, no content inspection at all, just
> more flexible / controllable chaining of smtpd restrictions.
>
> Best wishes
> Eugene
Hello Noel,
-Original Message-
From: Noel Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20 AM
You want to conditionally run some extra restrictions based on the
outcome of prior restrictions? Some of the existing policy servers
do weighted scoring, which gives very similar results.
Co
Am 16.01.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Eugene R:
If you're rejecting good mail more than "rarely", you should
reevaluate your restrictions.
In particular, most built-in HELO checks are likely to reject legit
mail, and not terribly effective against current spam bots. The
"reject_unknown_client" is al
Hello,
-Original Message-
From: li...@rhsoft.net
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 7:29 AM
> Actually the set I have is surprisingly effective and also surprisingly
> good in keeping FPs low -- much, much better than anything I saw from SA
> and DSPAM, and with virtually no server or m
Am 18.01.2015 um 00:00 schrieb Eugene R:
-Original Message- From: li...@rhsoft.net
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 7:29 AM
> Actually the set I have is surprisingly effective and also surprisingly
> good in keeping FPs low -- much, much better than anything I saw
from SA
> and DSPAM,
-Original Message- From: Noel Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20 AM
You want to conditionally run some extra restrictions based on the
outcome of prior restrictions? Some of the existing policy servers
do weighted scoring, which gives very similar results.
Conditional greyl
