Noel Jones skrev den 2013-01-06 19:40:
Clearly the current, vastly improved, false positive rate is still
not acceptable for everyone.
http://www.dnswl.org/tech see more on permit_dnswl_client
it does not need to be specific dnswl.org as dnsbl/dnswl, its just an
good example on postfix
Wietse Venema:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
system. Wietse
What is your concern about Spamcop?
Happy to learn,
Jos
Jos Chrispijn:
Wietse Venema:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
system. Wietse
What is your concern about Spamcop?
Read their blocklist policy.
I use it, thusly:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org*2
bl.spamcop.net*1
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
Take another look. I
On 1/6/2013 11:29 AM, John Levine wrote:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and
On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and
On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been
Le 27/12/2012 04:05, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On 12/26/2012 6:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
On 12/24/2012 4:34 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
[195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=u...@libero.it,
to=f...@example.com, proto=SMTP,
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
site listed on two of these three is likely spam, a site listed on
only one of them is questionable.
Nonsense. The mere fact that a
On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
site listed on two of these three is likely spam, a site listed on
only one of them is
On 12/25/2012 9:26 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
My postscreen config contains:
postscreen_access_list = permit_mynetworks,
cidr:/etc/postfix/postscreen_access.cidr
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 1
postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
postscreen_greet_action = enforce
postscreen_blacklist_action =
On 12/26/2012 6:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
site listed on two of these three is likely
Hi,
My postscreen config contains:
postscreen_access_list = permit_mynetworks,
cidr:/etc/postfix/postscreen_access.cidr
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 1
postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
postscreen_greet_action = enforce
postscreen_blacklist_action = enforce
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
due to postscreen, but now we have one email
Hi,
I haven't been able to find much available on the proper use for
smtpd_mumble_restrictions. It doesn't seem to be documented with
postscreen or the postconf page or even my postconf output.
smtpd_mumble_restrictions is shorthand for use any of
smtpd_{client, helo, sender, recipient,
Hi,
It also looks like mail originates from IPs other than those listed as
an MX record for alice.it, so I'm not even sure what the range would
be for the postscreen permit rules.
As always it would be helpful if you provided Postfix logging of these
rejections so we can see what is
On 12/24/2012 2:26 PM, Alex wrote:
Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
[195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=u...@libero.it,
to=f...@example.com, proto=SMTP,
Hi,
Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
[195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=u...@libero.it,
to=f...@example.com, proto=SMTP,
helo=static-195-81-140-87.irtnet.net
Here's your
Alex:
Dec 24 04:23:11 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from [212.52.84.101]:54948: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
[212.52.84.101] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
Wietse
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:34:20PM -0500, Alex wrote:
Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE:
reject: RCPT from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; client [195.81.140.87] blocked using
bl.spamcop.net; from=u...@libero.it, to=f...@example.com,
On 12/24/2012 2:16 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I haven't been able to find much available on the proper use for
smtpd_mumble_restrictions. It doesn't seem to be documented with
postscreen or the postconf page or even my postconf output.
smtpd_mumble_restrictions is shorthand for use any of
Am 24.12.2012 02:38, schrieb Alex:
It also looks like mail originates from IPs other than those listed as
an MX record for alice.it
MX record has nothing to do with sending IP's
it is only the incoming server
in nearly any larger setup they are different
because you have incoming servers
Alex:
Hi,
I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
due to postscreen, but now we have one email address from each domain
that
Hi,
I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
due to postscreen, but now we have one email address from each domain
that we need
25 matches
Mail list logo
