On 07/12/2012 10:36 AM, Gary Gendel wrote:
On 7/12/12 1:18 PM, BC wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I use an internal caching DNS server as a DNS forwarder for spamdyke's
dns requests. This way I only need to query outside once, and
subsequent spam
Right.
But the bottom line is that spamdyke is still doing a fabulous job of
blocking spam by whatever filter is doing it.
Thanks.
On 7/13/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Well, remember the filters run in a specific order. Graylisting is one of
the very last
Hello!
Ok here some stats from some of our server with following setup:
Spamdyke
idle-timeout-secs=300
reject-identical-sender-recipient
sender-blacklist-file=/var/qmail/control/blacklist_senders
recipient-blacklist-file=/var/qmail/control/blacklist_recipients
On 7/12/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I use an internal caching DNS server as a DNS forwarder for spamdyke's
dns requests. This way I only need to query outside once, and
subsequent spam bursts from the same server are rejected by local
lookups to the cache. This
On 7/12/12 1:18 PM, BC wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I use an internal caching DNS server as a DNS forwarder for spamdyke's
dns requests. This way I only need to query outside once, and
subsequent spam bursts from the same server are rejected by
Well, remember the filters run in a specific order. Graylisting is one of the
very last filters to run -- it only gets a chance to reject connections that
have already passed every other filter. So it's very possible some of the
connections rejected by the missing rDNS filter would also have
Actually, graylist files are created empty when the first rejection is done.
If the sender tries again and the connection is allowed, spamdyke puts the IP
address and rDNS name of the remote server into the file. So comparing the
number of zero-byte files to non-zero-byte files would give a
On 7/11/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I've disabled graylisting on a few domains that are sensitive to timely
delivery. They haven't complained about any increase in spam. You might
try doing the same to see the effect.
I expect that the various rDNS filters,
On 7/11/12 1:50 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
On 07/11/2012 10:40 AM, BC wrote:
On 7/11/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I've disabled graylisting on a few domains that are sensitive to timely
delivery. They haven't complained about any increase in spam. You might
try doing
Am 10.07.2012 um 01:08 schrieb Sam Clippinger:
I just ran a few quick greps on my own server's logs for today [...]
Just for the record I did a little math on my greylist cleanup log files of
this year.
As for all stats it's value lies in the eye of the beer^h^hholder:
I have an average
Then why am I not getting hammered with spam? Is it the
failed-reverse-lookup that is saving me?
On 7/9/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Overall, I suspect Eric suspects what I also believe -- graylisting isn't
effective any more.
I don't know, I'm just going from my gut feeling here. Like Eric, I don't have
a script to measure this either.
I just ran a few quick greps on my own server's logs for today and found that
out of 192 unique senders who were graylisted, 145 successfully delivered at
least one message (76%).
12 matches
Mail list logo
