On 2011/01/18 9:49 AM, J4 wrote:
> This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, & the reason I
> decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
> setting it. ;) ).
>
> Parse the SPAM during the SMPT session and use only RAM: Perfect.
>
> I would still li
On 01/18/2011 08:33 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * J4 :
>> On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>>> * J4 :
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, & the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it. ;) ).
* J4 :
>
> On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > * J4 :
> >> This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, & the reason I
> >> decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
> >> setting it. ;) ).
> >>
> >> Parse the SPAM during the SMPT ses
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * J4 :
>> This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, & the reason I
>> decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
>> setting it. ;) ).
>>
>> Parse the SPAM during the SMPT session and use only RAM:
* J4 :
> This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, & the reason I
> decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
> setting it. ;) ).
>
> Parse the SPAM during the SMPT session and use only RAM: Perfect.
>
> I would still like to notify the connecting
Disabled. Done :-O
"Martin Gregorie" wrote:
>On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:43 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
>> disable it by default now.
>>
>>
>I found it was a pain with a user population of one and disable it
>automatically
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:43 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
> disable it by default now.
>
>
I found it was a pain with a user population of one and disable it
automatically.
Martin
On 01/18/2011 05:39 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * J4 :
I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
to silently drop spam from delivery?
>>> There are several: MimeDefang, Spamassassin-Milter and amavisd-new come to
>>> mind.
>>>
>>> MimeDefang and Spamass
I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
disable it by default now.
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
On 18 January 2011 16:35, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/18/2011 11:12 AM, J4 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Right - I've moved the SA scanning to the front of postfix, and it
>
* J4 :
> >> I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
> >> to silently drop spam from delivery?
> > There are several: MimeDefang, Spamassassin-Milter and amavisd-new come to
> > mind.
> >
> > MimeDefang and Spamassassin-Milter work as MILTERS (see: smtpd_milters or
>
On 1/18/2011 11:12 AM, J4 wrote:
>
>
> Right - I've moved the SA scanning to the front of postfix, and it
> scans accordingly and adds headers.
>
> What is odd, is that :-
> It seems that the AWL white-lists the email addresses that were
> black-listed. Additionally, the shortcircuit shoul
On 01/18/2011 04:20 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
>>> I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
>>> like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
>>> avoid backscatt
Em 18-01-2011 13:26, Giles Coochey escreveu:
>
> I enabled Greylisting for a while. Unfortunately - I found that the
> MTAs my MTA communicated with responded in unreliable ways. Some MTAs
> would not try any of my MX records (all using the same Greylisting db)
> for at least a day, while others w
On 18/01/2011 16:20, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
If you're thinking of detecting spam at SMTP time you should consider
greylisting. When my ISP implemented it the spam I get dropped
immediately from 80% of my mail to 8%, where its remained ever si
On 01/18/2011 04:20 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
>>> I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
>>> like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
>>> avoid backscatt
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
> >
> > I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
> > like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
> > avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/D
On 01/18/2011 03:59 PM, m...@junc.org wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:13:22 +0100, J4 wrote:
>
>> I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
>> like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
>> avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dov
On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
>
> I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
> like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
> avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot LDA.
You cannot do this from the delivery agent without
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:13:22 +0100, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot
LDA.
dont use sieve reject since if you are usi
On 01/17/2011 10:22 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * JKL :
>> On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>> On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
Hi there,
Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
address is blacklisted by the user? Did I misunde
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:12:42 +0100, JKL wrote:
I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party
programme
to silently drop spam from delivery?
enable sieve on docecot-lda
and see this http://sieve.info/
* JKL :
>
> On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
> >> address is blacklisted by the user? Did I misunderstand the
> >> short-circuit effect?
> >>
> >> Bes
On 1/17/2011 4:12 PM, JKL wrote:
> On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
>>> address is blacklisted by the user? Did I misunderstand the
>>> short-circuit effec
On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
>> address is blacklisted by the user? Did I misunderstand the
>> short-circuit effect?
>>
>> Best wishes.
>>
>>
> spamassass
24 matches
Mail list logo
