We are using postfix with debian lenny...
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that is using a
valid address in the Return Path. I have included an example of the header
info from one of the spam messages below. The “From” and “To” addresses just
seem to be random and are
...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Simon
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:39 PM
To: postfix users list
Subject: Spam Backscatter
We are using postfix with debian lenny...
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that is using a valid
address
Simon:
We are using postfix with debian lenny...
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that is using a
valid address in the Return Path. I have included an example of the header
info from one of the spam messages below. The _From_ and _To_ addresses just
seem to be
We've implemented an RBL for bounces using the data from
http://www.backscatterer.org/ -
It has virtually eliminated backscatter spam from entering our servers.
We have about 15k internal users and somewhere around 2 million emails
in and out daily, and being a very lightweight solution it
On 2011-02-02 Simon wrote:
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that is
using a valid address in the Return Path. I have included an example
of the header info from one of the spam messages below. The ?From? and
?To? addresses just seem to be random and are not related to
On 2/1/2011 5:39 PM, Simon wrote:
We are using postfix with debian lenny...
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that
is using a valid address in the Return Path. I have included
an example of the header info from one of the spam messages
below. The “From” and “To”
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Return-Path: soa@*
mailto:s...@newmedia.net.nz*[ourdomain.actual.domain]**
Received: from 195-191-72-102.optolan.net.ua
http://195-191-72-102.optolan.net.ua (unknown [195.191.72.102])
The client 195.191.72.102 is
On 2/1/2011 6:39 PM, Simon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Noel Jones
njo...@megan.vbhcs.org mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Return-Path: soa@*
mailto:s...@newmedia.net.nz
mailto:s...@newmedia.net.nz*[ourdomain.actual.domain]**
Received: from
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:39:12 +1300, Simon grem...@gmail.com wrote:
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that is using
a
valid address in the Return Path. I have included an example of the
job.com spam
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:29:37PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/1/2011 5:39 PM, Simon wrote:
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam that
is using a valid address in the Return Path. I have included
an example of the header info from one of the spam messages
below. The
On 2/1/2011 8:40 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
While this may be so, the OP probably received this as backscatter
from smtp.counselschambers.com.au[218.185.94.178], which currently is
listed on the backscatterer.org DNSBL. We (the Internet as a whole)
would benefit if more backscattering sites used Zen
Simon put forth on 2/1/2011 5:39 PM:
We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam
...
Return-Path: soa@* s...@newmedia.net.nz*[ourdomain.actual.domain]**
Received: from 195-191-72-102.optolan.net.ua (unknown [195.191.72.102])
by smtp-0.counselschambers.com.au
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 2/1/2011 11:21 PM:
It might be beneficial for you to send your postconf -n output so we can make
some anti spam configuration suggestions. This spam you're having a problem
with would likely not have made it past the normal spam filters of most people
on this list.
13 matches
Mail list logo
