Hello again,
I discovered possibility of milters. So I have created a milter that
performs the restriction I wanted. If someone would be interested, it
is here:
https://github.com/mjiricka/MailFrom_DNSBL_Milter
So far results are as expected – all spam filtered, zero false-positives! :)
Martin
> What I was trying to say is that (if there was 1 A record per domain), the
> number of spamhaus lookups would increase two times.
> If you check MX records, number of lookups can increase even more.
I am afraid I still do not understand how you count it :-( But it does
not matter, thank you
You ask each dnsbl for client IP, now you will ask them for each A or MX
record. That means, number of DNSBL lookups will increase ad least two times
(for each dnsbl you already query).
On 03.08.17 17:04, Martin Jiřička wrote:
Hmm, I am not server administrator by profession, so maybe I do not
> It seems natural (for me at least) to introduce a new map type
> dnsbl: that maps those IP addresses to an action.
That would be amazing! If I get it right this would also deprecate
e.g. `reject_rhsbl_client` and `reject_rbl_client`. As a Postfix
novice I would appreciate the reduction of
Martin Ji?i?ka:
> > Did you mean: reject_rhsbl_sender (i.e. reject the sender domain)?
> > That already exists.
>
> The `reject_rhsbl_sender` checks whether MAIL FROM domain is listed
> under rbl_domain. And I would like to have `reject_rbl_sender` that
> would check whether reversed sender
> I'm not talking about DNS lookups, but about DNSBL lookups.
Yes, I did interchanged them, pardon.
> You ask each dnsbl for client IP, now you will ask them for each A or MX
> record. That means, number of DNSBL lookups will increase ad least two times
> (for each dnsbl you already query).
Doing it on MX would require dnsbl lookups for each MX server in all
received mail.
That would massively increase amount of dnsbl lookups.
On 03.08.17 13:38, Martin Jiřička wrote:
I do not know if I would call it "massively". I already do
`reject_unknown_client_hostname` check and 4 other
> Did you mean: reject_rhsbl_sender (i.e. reject the sender domain)?
> That already exists.
The `reject_rhsbl_sender` checks whether MAIL FROM domain is listed
under rbl_domain. And I would like to have `reject_rbl_sender` that
would check whether reversed sender domain is listed under
Martin Ji?i?ka:
> Hi,
>
> why there is no `reject_rbl_sender` restriction?
Did you mean: reject_rhsbl_sender (i.e. reject the sender domain)?
That already exists.
Wietse
On 03/08/17 11:55, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> You apparently mean something like check_sender_mx_access (reject when MX
> server of sending domain points to blacklisted IP) or maybe
> check_sender_a_access (similar), but with dnsbl lookups.
>
> Doing it on MX would require dnsbl lookups for
> Doing it on MX would require dnsbl lookups for each MX server in all
> received mail.
> That would massively increase amount of dnsbl lookups.
I do not know if I would call it "massively". I already do
`reject_unknown_client_hostname` check and 4 other dnsbl lookups. So I
would do another 2 in
On 03.08.17 11:07, Martin Jiřička wrote:
why there is no `reject_rbl_sender` restriction? It probably does not
make so much sense as `reject_rbl_client`, but it would help me in my
spam battle. Quite a lot of emails come from servers not listed inside
Spamhause blacklists, but sender's domain
; Hi,
>
> why there is no `reject_rbl_sender` restriction? It probably does not
> make so much sense as `reject_rbl_client`, but it would help me in my
> spam battle. Quite a lot of emails come from servers not listed inside
> Spamhause blacklists, but sender's domain points to blacklisted IP.
>
> For
Hi,
why there is no `reject_rbl_sender` restriction? It probably does not
make so much sense as `reject_rbl_client`, but it would help me in my
spam battle. Quite a lot of emails come from servers not listed inside
Spamhause blacklists, but sender's domain points to blacklisted IP.
For example
14 matches
Mail list logo
