On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 14:18 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the CEO visits that country and can't send mail ...
snip
Oh, BTW, you forgot to complain
I was trying to be brief. If my provider blocked .kr I would be quite
happy until one of my associates decided to visit (s korea,
On 14-Aug-07, at 11:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Sergeant) writes:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Apache has been running with
$self-autoflush(0);
added to Qpsmtpd::Postfix::open_cleanup()
with no ill effects for a year or two now,
and it has IME had a
You mean SMTP RCPT, do you, not a plugin?
the config/plugins file has a rcpt_to listed and that is the one that is
denying the relaying.
rcpt_to would return DENY if the mail was going to an outside domain.
It looks as though rcpt_to was doing it's job because normally we don't
want to relay
Is anyone aware of a plugin for qpsmtpd which duplicates the
functionality of Inter7's qmail-tap patch for 'stock' qmail
(http://inter7.com/index.php?page=qmailtap)?
Is it possible to do this with a qpsmtpd plugin?
Is it the right approach or is there a better way to achieve similar
results?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Jim Murray wrote:
Is anyone aware of a plugin for qpsmtpd which duplicates the
functionality of Inter7's qmail-tap patch for 'stock' qmail
(http://inter7.com/index.php?page=qmailtap)?
Is it possible to do this with a qpsmtpd plugin?
Yes, you just need to conditionally
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:33:15 + (UTC)
Brad Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To whom it may concern (and can commit :)),
README.plugins documents, for the data_post hook:
DENY_DISCONNECT DENYSOFT_DISCONNECT - as above but with disconnect
But in Qpsmtpd/SMTP.pm, it doesn't
On 15-Aug-07, at 11:58 AM, Jim Murray wrote:
Is anyone aware of a plugin for qpsmtpd which duplicates the
functionality of Inter7's qmail-tap patch for 'stock' qmail
(http://inter7.com/index.php?page=qmailtap)?
Is it possible to do this with a qpsmtpd plugin?
Yup. See my article (linked from
simple enough to write a plugin that returns OK in hook_mail and
hook_rcpt whenever the sender is valid. how do you know that? do you
have a list?
allan
On 8/15/07, JT Moree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean SMTP RCPT, do you, not a plugin?
the config/plugins file has a rcpt_to listed and
On 8/15/07, m. allan noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
simple enough to write a plugin that returns OK in hook_mail and
hook_rcpt whenever the sender is valid. how do you know that? do you
have a list?
allan
and in fact- attached is just such a plugin. this is a slightly
modified version of
m. allan noah wrote:
On 8/15/07, m. allan noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
simple enough to write a plugin that returns OK in hook_mail and
hook_rcpt whenever the sender is valid. how do you know that? do you
have a list?
yes
and in fact- attached is just such a plugin. this is a slightly
Hello all,
Got a quick question for all those out there running large setups using
qpsmtpd. We currently have a setup which is load balanced across an several
qpsmtpd servers running a custom linux distro that basically runs the entire
setup in ram for maximum performance. Until lately the setup
In any case, this rule is blocking 50% of my connections now.
What DNSBLs are you using? I spotchecked a few of the hosts you
showed in your blog entry, and they're all in the CBL or PBL.
The CBL lists vast numbers of zombies, with essentially no false
positives. (It watches mail to large
Ed McLain wrote:
Hello all,
Got a quick question for all those out there running large setups using
qpsmtpd. We currently have a setup which is load balanced across an several
qpsmtpd servers running a custom linux distro that basically runs the entire
setup in ram for maximum performance.
I actually did a full testing of qpsmtpd-apache vs forkserver when I first
started building this cluster and the apache version just had way to much
overhead. Basically it couldn't handle the connections per second we were
throwing it. I asked the list for some help at that time, as I was
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, John Levine wrote:
In any case, this rule is blocking 50% of my connections now.
What DNSBLs are you using? I spotchecked a few of the hosts you
showed in your blog entry, and they're all in the CBL or PBL.
[snip]
Just sbl.spamhaus.org in qpsmtpd, and then whatever
Ed McLain wrote:
I actually did a full testing of qpsmtpd-apache vs forkserver when I first
started building this cluster and the apache version just had way to much
overhead. Basically it couldn't handle the connections per second we were
throwing it. I asked the list for some help at that
Hello!
But be careful - the 0.40 preforkserver version has MANY MANY BUGS!!! We
tried to use it for about 500 servers with over 10 000 connections / 10
minutes - and it wasn't useable at all.
We've now changed many lines - in the code and it works well. I've
already posts some messages to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Moyer wrote:
Maybe take Apache::Qpsmtpd for a spin. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it
is faster than forkserver [1], and it is a fairly simple install. Apache.org
is using it and processes quite a bit of mail.
[1]
I forget this SSL stuff so easily...
I have a geotrust .csr, which I sent off to them awhile back, and got my
mail.danga.com .crt from them ... and I have my mail.danga.com .key file.
But postfix/dovecot were only using the .crt and .key, as far as I can
see. Why does qpsmtpd need the CA file?
I don't think the problem is that they don't care, I think the problem is
that the patches get implemented into SVN but the there is no feature lock
to the svn code for the bugs to get worked out on the base and with so many
options finding all of the bugs is just a pain waiting to happen. Having
On 15-Aug-07, at 5:35 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
But be careful - the 0.40 preforkserver version has MANY MANY
BUGS!!! We tried to use it for about 500 servers with over 10 000
connections / 10 minutes - and it wasn't useable at all.
We've now changed many lines - in the code and it works
On 15-Aug-07, at 5:39 PM, Ed McLain wrote:
I'm all for any changes you have. I found most, I think, of the
issues on
our beta system had to do with some of the plugins, not sure
though.. If you
have any patches though I'd be open to trying to them out. I gotta do
something. We currently
Ed McLain schrieb:
I'm all for any changes you have. I found most, I think, of the issues on
our beta system had to do with some of the plugins, not sure though.. If you
have any patches though I'd be open to trying to them out. I gotta do
something. We currently have 8 3Ghz ( single cpu/dual
IS there any documentation anywhere on how and what needs to be changed?
I've looked on the wiki and don't see anything on there about it. As an
aside, I'll dig through the dnsbl plugin for async and see what I can come
up with. Any information would be very helpful though.
On 8/15/07 6:05 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Brady) writes:
AFAICT, nobody has ever said what constitutes 'faster', or what
performance testing has been done forkserver v Apache::Qpsmtpd.
When SMTP transactions are measured in seconds, faster really
doesn't matter unless you're talking about how quickly you can
The problems I saw with Apache:Qpsmtpd were that the connections would get
battered over each other. Basically, spammer connects and gets blacklisted,
server drops the connection and takes a new one, new connections issues a
HELO and server responds back with a 50x error message. The only way to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed McLain) writes:
The problems I saw with Apache:Qpsmtpd were that the connections would
get battered over each other. Basically, spammer connects and gets
blacklisted, server drops the connection and takes a new one, new
connections issues a HELO and server responds back
On 15-Aug-07, at 7:08 PM, Ed McLain wrote:
IS there any documentation anywhere on how and what needs to be
changed?
I've looked on the wiki and don't see anything on there about it.
As an
aside, I'll dig through the dnsbl plugin for async and see what I
can come
up with. Any information
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:50:32PM -0700, JT Moree wrote:
m. allan noah wrote:
Thank you, I'll experiment with this but I'm still not sure why the
whitelistsenders from whitelist_soft does not work? is it only supposed
to work on senders outside my domain that send mail to my
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 00:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so maybe blacklisting countries isn't the best way to deal with spam,
but if you're going to do it, then why not block all services but VPN and
the non-admin areas of your website at the
Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
But postfix/dovecot were only using the .crt and .key, as far as I can
see. Why does qpsmtpd need the CA file? Isn't Geotrust in clients'
default CA lists?
It isn't the client, rather it is the server that needs the Geotrust CA in it's
own CA file. OpenSSL on the
Hrmm.. I tried several different setups and configurations, rebuilding
apache to support the different forking methods. It was so long ago though
that I don't honestly remember which ones worked better or worse.
On 8/15/07 9:10 PM, Peter Eisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the
Just sbl.spamhaus.org in qpsmtpd, and then whatever SpamAssassin does.
Change from sbl to zen and you'll be amazed how much more spam it catches.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be,
33 matches
Mail list logo
