On Dienstag, 27. September 2005 07:51 email builder wrote:
> The above can probably be done in Postfix with one or two restriction
> classes.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_restriction_classes
> http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
>
> I'd be curious to hear if any
--- Herb Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am new to postfix and spamassassin, but we are already
> > using greylist, and I liked a lot what you said here.
> >
> > How can I greylist messages by means of RBL checking? How
> > should I setup Postfix to do that?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carl
> I am new to postfix and spamassassin, but we are already
> using greylist, and I liked a lot what you said here.
>
> How can I greylist messages by means of RBL checking? How
> should I setup Postfix to do that?
>
> Regards,
> Carlos.
I am not a Postfix expert, and cannot really call myself
Hi !!
I am new to postfix and spamassassin, but we are already using
greylist, and I liked a lot what you said here.
How can I greylist messages by means of RBL checking? How should I
setup Postfix to do that?
Regards,
Carlos.
2005/9/24, Herb Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > From: Kai Schaetzl [
On Samstag, 24. September 2005 12:31 Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Assess what you actually get from your RBLs and
> remove those that add less than 5% to your rejections.
Why? 5% rejections can be worth the lookup. I prefer some lookups over
receiving SPAM. Or do I miss something?
mfg zmi
--
// Michae
> From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Not sure how you combine that. AFAIR, greylisting is
> tempfailing the first SMTP delivery attempt, correct? Do you
> check the IP with RBLs and then tempfail it? So, you don't
> tempfail *every* connection attempt like "traditional"
> greylist
Herb Martin wrote on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:17:06 -0500:
> You RISK getting false positives with ANY RBL
Of course, yes. One better speaks of a "cost-value ratio" (with cost being
"false positives" for your clients and value being the rejected spam and
viruses). In this respect the combined Spamh
> From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If you want to be safe, then use rbl+xbl.Spamhaus only. It is
> safe *and* effective. If you add any other you risk getting
> false positives. That is in the nature of RBLs and there is
> no reason to complain about that fact or any of these RBLs
Email builder wrote on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:12:05 -0700 (PDT):
> OK, well other people also seem to be saying that SORBS is just not
> acceptable for a front-line RBL. Really too bad. Really. We do already use
> a ton of other RBLs, but just hate to let any of them go.
I doubt there is much u
Larry M. Rosenbaum wrote on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:41:18 -0400:
> 127.0.0.2 Open HTTP server
> 127.0.0.3 Open Socks server
> 127.0.0.4 Open Proxy server
> 127.0.0.5 Open SMTP relay
> 127.0.0.10 Dynamic address
You can do it much simpler and with less traffic. There is a new
aggregated list
On Samstag, 24. September 2005 06:14 email builder wrote:
> No. Please understand that there is a difference between using SORBS
> in the MTA (ala Postfix's smtpd_recipient_restrictions) where a
> listing equates to an immediate rejection and using SORBS in SA for
> scoring. You are referring t
> On Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 22:24 email builder wrote:
> > How so? I can't believe you don't hear me when I say for the 100th
> > time that services like ours that have a lot of users who expect to
> > communicate with hotmail users cannot use an RBL in the MTA if it
> > lists hotmail.
>
On Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 22:24 email builder wrote:
> How so? I can't believe you don't hear me when I say for the 100th
> time that services like ours that have a lot of users who expect to
> communicate with hotmail users cannot use an RBL in the MTA if it
> lists hotmail.
Larry said i
> goals as irrelevant as you explicitly did. I, for one, enjoy the thought
> of
> people working together for goals outside of their own self-interest.
>
>
> So we circle back to the start: you apparently have a utopian user
> community
> that does not have any need to correspond with hotmail us
> ... but who not to whitelist?
> >>>
> >>> the small guys. unfortunately, large ISPs like that have power in
> >>> the
> >>> number
> >>> of users they have. in no way do I advocate defending that as a good
> >>> thing,
> >>> but the fact that this gives them an immense amount of power to
abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
At least from my experience, while the rfc-ignorant.org lists are great in
theory, they cause enough problems with end users that they're not worth it.
The last ISP I worked at used them (the sys admin was the walking definition
of a BOFH), and as t
Alex Pleiner wrote:
* Nathanael Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-21 22:48]:
Look at other rbl's, consider some or all of:
abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
list.dsbl.org
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
opm.blitzed.org
Please note that sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org includes opm.blitzed.org.
Accor
> From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Can someone remind me if I am correct in my recollection that SORBS
comes
> enabled by default for use in contributing to SA scores?
>
> Thanks a lot
There are RCVD_IN_SORBS_* rules in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf for each of the
various SORBS lists. The
* Nathanael Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-21 22:48]:
> Look at other rbl's, consider some or all of:
> abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
> dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
> list.dsbl.org
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> opm.blitzed.org
Please note that sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org includes opm.blitzed.org.
According to http://ww
On Sep 21, 2005, at 11:17 PM, email builder wrote:
... but who not to whitelist?
the small guys. unfortunately, large ISPs like that have power in
the
number
of users they have. in no way do I advocate defending that as a good
thing,
but the fact that this gives them an immense amount of
> We removed sorbs. I don't think it's even open for debate at the
> current
> point.
> If places like hotmail mx's end up on the blacklist you *will*
> have
> upset
> customers.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah. It would be nice if there were a blacklist out there that took
On Sep 21, 2005, at 7:26 PM, email builder wrote:
We removed sorbs. I don't think it's even open for debate at the
current
point.
If places like hotmail mx's end up on the blacklist you *will*
have
upset
customers.
Yeah. It would be nice if there were a blacklist out there that took
the
> >> We removed sorbs. I don't think it's even open for debate at the
> >> current
> >> point.
> >> If places like hotmail mx's end up on the blacklist you *will* have
> >> upset
> >> customers.
> >
> > Yeah. It would be nice if there were a blacklist out there that took
> > the
> > best of
On Sep 21, 2005, at 5:23 PM, email builder wrote:
We removed sorbs. I don't think it's even open for debate at the
current
point.
If places like hotmail mx's end up on the blacklist you *will* have
upset
customers.
Yeah. It would be nice if there were a blacklist out there that took
> > Complaint from a user led me to find this in our logfile:
> >
> > Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable;
> Client
> > host [64.4.56.21] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Spam Received See:
> > ht
> > Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable;
> Client
> > host [64.4.56.21] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Spam Received See:
> > http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?64.4.56.21; from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
They are also in this list as well as
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sucks that microsoft can just do whatever they want
since they have sooo
many users, but as this is the current state of our
reality, I am interested
in what people are doing to deal with it as is.
Removed sorbs, no choice.
Is this causing anyone else probl
>
> > It sucks that microsoft can just do whatever they want
> since they have sooo
> > many users, but as this is the current state of our
> reality, I am interested
> > in what people are doing to deal with it as is.
>
> Removed sorbs, no choice.
> >
> > Is this causing anyone else problems?
email builder wrote:
Complaint from a user led me to find this in our logfile:
Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable; Client
host [64.4.56.21] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Spam Received See:
http:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> email builder writes:
> > Complaint from a user led me to find this in our logfile:
> >
> > Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable;
Client
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
email builder writes:
> Complaint from a user led me to find this in our logfile:
>
> Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable; Client
> host [64.4.56.21
Complaint from a user led me to find this in our logfile:
Sep 21 09:07:07 gaia postfix/smtpd[6392]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
bay101-f11.bay101.hotmail.com[64.4.56.21]: 554 Service unavailable; Client
host [64.4.56.21] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Spam Received See:
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.
33 matches
Mail list logo
