That's what I was looking for (I think). I should be able to script
something together with that. I'll post it here if/when I get it done.
Not really a high priority at the moment. ;)
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> That's not a bad idea, I'll add that to the ever-growing list. :)
>
> With the current
* Eric Shubert [090826 21:09]:
> It'd be nice if there was a spamdyke tool that would allow one to easily
> re-check an IP address to see if their server has subsequently been
> fixed, as an aid in keeping the whitelist clean. Sort of a "if a certain
> IP address were to send an email to my ser
* Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) [090826 18:02]:
> I am registered with barracuda, but I had heard before that barracuda can
> reject a fair number of genuine emails (I never remember if that is a false
nope, for me the false positive rate of uceprotect was more.
> negative or a false positiv
That's not a bad idea, I'll add that to the ever-growing list. :)
With the current version (assuming you're comfortable at the command
line), you can set the TCPREMOTEIP environment variable to the remote IP
and run spamdyke manually to see what it says. Something like this:
$ export TCPREM
This isn't too surprising -- spamdyke doesn't check the "Received"
headers or any part of the actual message content. If the blacklisted
IP address mentioned in the text only occurs in the message headers,
spamdyke won't stop it.
If you need a filter that will examine message content, take a l
Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) wrote:
> I have spamdyke, with Atomic Secured Linux as well, protecting a server, and
> it works well generally, stopping about 50% of emails (I note that some
> people have reported 90+% Spam statistics). I have just run a DNSStuff
> Anti-Spam Filtering Test. It
> Kind regards,
>
> Christoph
> -Original Message-
> From: spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org
> [mailto:spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
> Sent: 26 August 2009 15:13
> To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users]
: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] newbie question - please bear with me - some
Spam getting through
Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) wrote:
>
> Separately, I do notice a small but sufficiently significant number of
> genuine emails which get rejected with no re
Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) wrote:
>
> Separately, I do notice a small but sufficiently significant number of
> genuine emails which get rejected with no reverse DNS. Should we be happy
> to put email addresses on the white list, or is that dangerous with Spammers
> being able to get throug
-
From: spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org
[mailto:spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org] On Behalf Of Kulkarni Shantanu
Sent: 26 August 2009 09:40
To: spamdyke users
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] newbie question - please bear with me - some
Spam getting through
* Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd
* Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) [090826 13:27]:
> I have spamdyke, with Atomic Secured Linux as well, protecting a server, and
> it works well generally, stopping about 50% of emails (I note that some
> people have reported 90+% Spam statistics). I have just run a DNSStuff
> Anti-Spam Filteri
I have spamdyke, with Atomic Secured Linux as well, protecting a server, and
it works well generally, stopping about 50% of emails (I note that some
people have reported 90+% Spam statistics). I have just run a DNSStuff
Anti-Spam Filtering Test. It got through:
"This is a test message that was s
12 matches
Mail list logo
