Re: eval:check_uridnsbl to check subdomains

2016-08-02 Thread Benny Pedersen
On 2016-08-02 17:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: you can not, but you could check util_rb_2tld and util_rb_3tld directives to see if it fits your needs use them will disable spam test on this tld aswell

Re: eval:check_uridnsbl to check subdomains

2016-08-02 Thread Benny Pedersen
On 2016-08-02 16:36, Robert Boyl wrote: How can I make it work with subdomains also? why would you like this to happen ?

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its problem postfix can use se

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 02.08.2016 um 23:02 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix which is not the topic but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Benny Pedersen
On 2016-08-02 21:27, Robert Schetterer wrote: you may use a complete postfix server including postscreen etc "before" sendmailbut then it might better to simply change to postfix in total, but such setups are often use with MS exchange if that can serve as a content-filter it could be used

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Benny Pedersen
On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its problem postfix can use sendmail as a content-filter what goal ?

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Bill Cole
On 2 Aug 2016, at 14:00, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 02.08.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin: >> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: >> >>> What's special about the postscreen delay is: >>> >>> 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it >>> catches MANY more bots than a si

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin: On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by default) delay that it imposes only hits the

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 02.08.2016 um 18:55 schrieb Bill Cole: Combined, this is why Sendmail and other MTA greeting delays are less spectacularly effective than they used to be and less effective than postscreen. The resource cost of prolonging every session to 6s is untenable for busy machines, so bots that have

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

2016-08-02 Thread Bill Cole
On 1 Aug 2016, at 15:53, Axb wrote: On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent Fox wrote: I keep seeing people say "well if you have postscreen, greylisting is just dumb". I think that's a bit too strong. Robust greylisting that accommodates the reality of mail systems that share one spool across many out

Re: eval:check_uridnsbl to check subdomains

2016-08-02 Thread Axb
On 08/02/2016 04:36 PM, Robert Boyl wrote: Hi, everyone We are trying to query subdomains of a DNSBL in body of message, but learned that the default plugin we use, used by URIBL, caps off subdomains. This is the rule we based ourselves on... it works fine, except for subdomains... it considers

Re: eval:check_uridnsbl to check subdomains

2016-08-02 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 02.08.16 11:36, Robert Boyl wrote: We are trying to query subdomains of a DNSBL in body of message, but learned that the default plugin we use, used by URIBL, caps off subdomains. This is the rule we based ourselves on... it works fine, except for subdomains... it considers the domain part...

eval:check_uridnsbl to check subdomains

2016-08-02 Thread Robert Boyl
Hi, everyone We are trying to query subdomains of a DNSBL in body of message, but learned that the default plugin we use, used by URIBL, caps off subdomains. This is the rule we based ourselves on... it works fine, except for subdomains... it considers the domain part... urirhssub URIBL_GR