Am 2008-11-07 21:27:17, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> how can anyone solve anything when postmasters cant talk together ?
IF there are legitimate "postmaser" messages from serious domains, they
will go throuh... But I do not like to kommunicate with postmaster from
domains bombing me.
Please note,
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2008 19:31, mouss wrote:
postmaster@
so Michell said she rejects mail from postmaster@ from specific clients.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
you cited rfci which is irrelevant here.
the rfci policy applies to postmaster as a recip
Benny Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, November 7, 2008 19:31, mouss wrote:
>
> >>> postmaster@
> >> http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
> > the rfci policy applies to postmaster as a recipient. nobody can force
> > you to accept mail _from_ postmaster.
>
> how can anyone
> how can anyone solve anything when postmasters cant talk together ?
>
> doh
>
>
> --
> Benny Pedersen
>
*snip* advertisement and link
benny,
do you trust emails from some postmaster at some domain and spend lots of
time answering them?
yeah, right.
and btw benny, please stop spamming us
On Fri, November 7, 2008 19:31, mouss wrote:
>>> postmaster@
>> http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
> the rfci policy applies to postmaster as a recipient. nobody can force
> you to accept mail _from_ postmaster.
how can anyone solve anything when postmasters cant talk together ?
doh
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2008 03:33, Michelle Konzack wrote:
I am rejecting ANY (!!!) messages coming from <*.ru> and <*.ua> domains
where the "From:" header is from:
MAILER-DAEMON@
ok
postmaster@
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
the rfci
On Fri, November 7, 2008 03:33, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I am rejecting ANY (!!!) messages coming from <*.ru> and <*.ua> domains
> where the "From:" header is from:
>
> MAILER-DAEMON@
ok
> postmaster@
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
> noreply@
>
Hi Chris.
I have gotten over 200.000 of them with more then 2700 MByte...
Now it is reduced to less then 200 backscatter per day.
I am rejecting ANY (!!!) messages coming from <*.ru> and <*.ua> domains
where the "From:" header is from:
MAILER-DAEMON@
postmaster@
noreply
In order to reduce backscattering, I'm using an additional milter-regex
on the systems processing outgoing messages. This milter-regex try to
recognize backscattered messages as well as spam marked messages
redirected to addresses outside off the protected perimeter. Although
this method is not
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
[snip]
will vbounce tag this message?
Nope ;)
hmmm. It does trigger BOUNCE_MESSAGE here (both my message and your reply):
[71842] dbg: rules: ran one_line_body rule __BOUNCE_OOO_1 ==> got
hit: "I will be on vacation f
mouss writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > mouss writes:
> >>[snip]
> >> will vbounce tag this message?
> >
> > Nope ;)
> >
>
> hmmm. It does trigger BOUNCE_MESSAGE here (both my message and your reply):
>
> [71842] dbg: rules: ran one_line_body rule __BOUNCE_OOO_1 ==> got
> hit: "I will be
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
[snip]
will vbounce tag this message?
Nope ;)
hmmm. It does trigger BOUNCE_MESSAGE here (both my message and your reply):
[71842] dbg: rules: ran one_line_body rule __BOUNCE_OOO_1 ==> got
hit: "I will be on vacation from"
...
[71842] dbg: rules: ran
mouss writes:
> Andy Spiegl wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > But I do agree with Karsten (or Guenther?) that we shouldn't raise the
> > score.
>
> yes, vbounce does FP. Let's test:
>
> nobody wrote:
> > I will be on vacation from 1/2/2345 to 6/7/8901.
>
> will vbounce tag this message?
Nope ;)
-
Andy Spiegl wrote:
[snip]
But I do agree with Karsten (or Guenther?) that we shouldn't raise the
score.
yes, vbounce does FP. Let's test:
nobody wrote:
> I will be on vacation from 1/2/2345 to 6/7/8901.
will vbounce tag this message?
But my problem is that I cannot explain to all of my u
On 2008-11-03, 13:02, Bob Kinney wrote:
> We set up server side filters for SPAM that users can enable or
> disable, is this something you could do in your environment?
Uhmmm...not easily I think.
We're using a combination of postfix and AMaViS.
I'd have to plug procmail inbetween somehow...
Than
Uhmm... interesting. What exactly might cause this?
I tried to trigger this behaviour bouncing and forwarding mails from
different accounts but never saw the __BOUNCE_RPATH_NULL tag.
Might just be our mail server software. It's something we've worked around.
But I do agree with Karsten (or G
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:57 +0100, Andy Spiegl wrote:
> Shouldn't the vbounce ruleset help here?
Yes, it does. :)
> I'm asking because me and my users have the same problem and I am
> currently considering giving the ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE a higher score
> but I am not sure yet whether it's a good i
On 2008-11-03, 10:13, Bob Kinney wrote:
> but had one unfortunate side effect: E-mail forwarded from another
> account to an account on our servers was considered a "bounce"
> because it hit __BOUNCE_RPATH_NULL.
Uhmm... interesting. What exactly might cause this?
I tried to trigger this behaviou
We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin
built-in. At the present time, my mailbox is filled with
backscatter; getting around 10 a minute since 4:30 today. I have
postfix backscatter rules in postfix of zimbra,
http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html#real but still
getting p
On 2008-10-29, 18:44, Chris Arnold wrote:
> We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin
> built-in. At the present time, my mailbox is filled with
> backscatter; getting around 10 a minute since 4:30 today. I have
> postfix backscatter rules in postfix of zimbra,
> http://www.postfix.
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Chris Arnold wrote:
> We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin built-in. At the
> present time, my mailbox is filled with backscatter; getting around 10 a
> minute since 4:30 today. I have postfix backscatter rules in postfix of
> zimbra, http://www.post
On Sun, November 2, 2008 22:18, mouss wrote:
>> that rbl long ago, olso its bad to see dsn go out to remote mtas is the
>> biggest problem mailerdaemons should stay local
> sorry, I don't understand the last part.
i explain badly sorry for that, but when mta bounces mailer daemons msg
outside the
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Matthias Leisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mouss schrieb:
reject_backscatter =
reject_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
Which will very likely result in a lot of false positives.
an FP here would mostly be: a bounce from a 3d party that is listed on
backscatterer.org.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, November 2, 2008 19:14, mouss wrote:
PS. don't think SPF will help. this has been discussed here and
elsewhere before.
SPF helps if its used from the sites that does use spf in mta stage, if not
used it will turn over to be a backscatter site itself
yes, but I
Matthias Leisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mouss schrieb:
>
> >>> reject_backscatter =
> >>> reject_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
> >>
> >> Which will very likely result in a lot of false positives.
> >
> > an FP here would mostly be: a bounce from a 3d party that is listed on
> > backsc
On Sun, November 2, 2008 19:14, mouss wrote:
> PS. don't think SPF will help. this has been discussed here and
> elsewhere before.
SPF helps if its used from the sites that does use spf in mta stage, if not
used it will turn over to be a backscatter site itself
that rbl listed sourceforge.net f
mouss schrieb:
>>> reject_backscatter =
>>> reject_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
>>
>> Which will very likely result in a lot of false positives.
>
> an FP here would mostly be: a bounce from a 3d party that is listed on
> backscatterer.org. do you get a lot of such mail?
No, an FP is an
Matthias Leisi wrote:
mouss schrieb:
reject_backscatter =
reject_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
Which will very likely result in a lot of false positives.
an FP here would mostly be: a bounce from a 3d party that is listed on
backscatterer.org. do you get a lot of such mail?
mouss schrieb:
> reject_backscatter =
> reject_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
Which will very likely result in a lot of false positives.
-- Matthias
Chris Arnold wrote:
We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin built-in. At
the present time, my mailbox is filled with backscatter; getting around
10 a minute since 4:30 today. I have postfix backscatter rules in
postfix of zimbra,
http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html#
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:28 -0600, Karl Pearson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Chris Arnold wrote:
>
> > We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin built-in. At the
> > present time, my mailbox is filled with backscatter; getting around 10 a
> > minute since 4:30 today. I have postf
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Chris Arnold wrote:
We use zimbra OSS on SLES10 SP1. Zimbra has spamassassin built-in. At the
present time, my mailbox is filled with backscatter; getting around 10 a
minute since 4:30 today. I have postfix backscatter rules in postfix of
zimbra, http://www.postfix.org/BAC
32 matches
Mail list logo
