>> I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
>> antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
>>
>> Any infos/links/advices welcome
>
> One link, Google, would have easily found clamav.
>
> Info/advice: with postscreen(8), sane HELO restrictions, and
On 2012-01-11 10:12 AM, email builder wrote:
> So who is using Stan's list? What do people have to say about
> it? What should I consider in regard to possibly implementing it?
I am using it (for a while now)...
This isn't really like a DNSBL, it simply rejects hosts that are
'spammy', meani
On 1/11/2012 9:12 AM, email builder wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
>>> antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
>>>
>>> Any infos/links/advices welcome
>>
>> One link, Google, would have easily found clamav.
>>
>> Info/advi
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:19:36 -0600, Noel Jones
wrote:
> I would classify it as low risk of false positives, and fairly safe.
> (but not 100% safe; few rules are. YMMV and such.) I've had a
> couple of FP's from idiots that run their business mail servers on a
> cablemodem with a dynamic rDNS na
On Wednesday 11 January 2012 12:52:42 Mark Alan wrote:
> I would also be interesting to be able to use a similar mechanism
> earlier, from the postscreen_access_list (after permit_mynetworks
> but before going outside to fetch the postscreen_dnsbl_* stuff):
>
> postscreen_access_list = permit_myne
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:12:15 -0800 (PST), email builder wrote:
So who is using Stan's list?
its blowing in the wind
What do people have to say about it?
good
What should I consider in regard to possibly implementing it?
ask for paypal account to pay Stan
>>> http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
>>
>> I've been curious about Stan's list of pcres. It looks massive,
>> and Stan
>> seems to be a regular expert contributer here. But I'm reluctant to
>> start using a text file from a web site with nothing on it and only a
On 1/11/2012 3:56 PM, email builder wrote:
http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
> Noel, thank you for the thorough response. Thanks also to
> all the other responders. I'm definitely convinced. :)
>
> And of course, thanks to Stan!
Of all days for me to be away f
On 1/12/2012 1:11 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/11/2012 3:56 PM, email builder wrote:
> http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
>
>> Noel, thank you for the thorough response. Thanks also to
>> all the other responders. I'm definitely convinced. :)
>>
>> And of cours
On 11 jan. 2012, at 16:12, email builder wrote:
>> http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
>
> So who is using Stan's list? What do people have to say about
> it? What should I consider in regard to possibly implementing it?
We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. T
On 2012-01-13 4:48 AM, DTNX/NGMX Postmaster wrote:
We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
positives we saw while testing it as a reverse DNS restriction but,
because the use of the reverse hostname as the HELO string is a
common pattern in spam attempts from comprom
On 1/13/2012 3:48 AM, DTNX/NGMX Postmaster wrote:
> On 11 jan. 2012, at 16:12, email builder wrote:
>
>>> http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
>>
>> So who is using Stan's list? What do people have to say about
>> it? What should I consider in regard to possibly implement
>> We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
>> positives we saw while testing it as a reverse DNS restriction but,
>> because the use of the reverse hostname as the HELO string is a
>> common pattern in spam attempts from compromised hosts, it's still
>> very effec
On 1/13/2012 2:13 PM, email builder wrote:
>>> We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
>> Interesting... can you provide specific details on what you mean by
>> 'modified version'?
>
> I second that. I'm feeling convinced enough to use it as it was
> intended, BUT
On 13 jan. 2012, at 21:13, email builder wrote:
>>> We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
>>> positives we saw while testing it as a reverse DNS restriction but,
>>> because the use of the reverse hostname as the HELO string is a
>>> common pattern in spam attempts f
On 2012-01-13 6:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/13/2012 2:13 PM, email builder wrote:
We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
Interesting... can you provide specific details on what you mean by
'modified version'?
I second that. I'm feeling convinced enoug
On 1/14/2012 6:40 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I was more interested in what specific changes he made in order to
> use it as a HELO blacklist, and how and why it avoided false
> positives when it is used the way we have been using it
>
To use it as a HELO blacklist, you simply call it with
chec
On 1/14/2012 6:40 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I was more interested in what specific changes he made in order to use
> it as a HELO blacklist, and how and why it avoided false positives when
> it is used the way we have been using it
It wouldn't really require any changes. You could use it with
On 2012-01-14 5:39 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/14/2012 6:40 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I was more interested in what specific changes he made in order to use
it as a HELO blacklist, and how and why it avoided false positives when
it is used the way we have been using it
It wouldn't really r
19 matches
Mail list logo
