>
> Hi,
>
> Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
>
> I'm wondering if there is some way to help the
On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
> > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> > to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
> >
> > I'm wonde
>
> Seriously...
>
> How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
> for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
>
> Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
> change and that he isn't losing any email i
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
> MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
> So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
You are begining to understand why MX relays are recommended agains
At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
Loss of mail.
mail would have remained in the mailqueue. Comcast, AOL, Yahoo,
Gmail, corporate servers, private servers, etc. would have retried to
send the mail to you later. When you
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to report 120,000 spams a day
>
> At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
> >What would have been the downside
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Hi,
Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
So I've asked multiple people multiple times how using sendmail
o
James E. Pratt wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
> >
> > Loss of mail.
>
> No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
> no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
> usual
Sandy S wrote:
OK, I admit I haven't been following this thread closely so I may have
missed something and maybe my suggestion won't fit your needs. However,
we're accomplishing something like what you describe above using
Mimedefang. The Mimedefang milter includes a function called
md_check
At 13:38 10-03-2008, James E. Pratt wrote:
No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
usually is caused by many more issues than just no backup/secondary MX).
Yes.
At 14:20 10-03-2008, Bob Pro
On 3/10/2008 7:15 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
In any case, if someone can explain the mechanics
of having a sendmail MX that is not the final delivery server
do localized verification against something and then pass
it along to the final delivery server please let me know.
Its not that
So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
So I've asked multiple people multiple times how using sendmail
on an MX thats not a final delivery server how to use the virtusertable
to accept the mail, process against the virtusertable, and then
when the final delivery server i
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
There are "considerations" in doing this. Right now,
all my systems are set up running sendmail, and all with the
config of :
define(`confCOPY_ERRORS_TO',`Postmaster')
As such, true to its name, anytime there is an error, the
postmaster gets a c
>
> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
> > > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> > > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> > > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> > > to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
> > >
> >
9 -0500 (EST)
> To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [spamassassin] Re: How to report 120,000 spams a day
>
>>
>> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I have a feeling that I'm not expl
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
>> > > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
>> > > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
>> > > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
>> > > to be spams, and
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of disk usage. I
SM wrote:
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing any email if you do not do a
>
> At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
> >down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
> >every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
> >reduce the amount
>
> Automatic reporting - that's another thing entirely. As was pointed out in
> previous replys, the user
> community is not always accurate in reporting what is legit spam, and what
> is/was requested
> or "permitted". I tend to report manually, although I am writing some code
> to semi-auto
At 11:01 09-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> doing
> this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> I'll probably just end up having to /dev/null them as I hav
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1 ever 3/4 of a second.
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> > I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> > doing
> > this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> > I'll probably just end up having to /dev/nul
26 matches
Mail list logo
