John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, mouss wrote:
running SA at smtp time requires that the client does not timeout.
so you'd better scan fast! you're also more subject to DOS (your
smtp listeners are busy). compare this to queue and filter...
okay, here's a sick idea:
(1) MTA
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Sort of like grey listing, which I do run on my personal domain, but I
> wouldn't use that method because of the inherent delay caused by the
> 4xx retry.
Only happens once though.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 at 18:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, mouss wrote:
running SA at smtp time requires that the client does not timeout.
so you'd better scan fast! you're also more subject to DOS (your
smtp listeners are busy). compare thi
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, mouss wrote:
running SA at smtp time requires that the client does not timeout.
so you'd better scan fast! you're also more subject to DOS (your
smtp listeners are busy). compare this to queue and filter...
okay, here's a sick idea:
(1) MTA complete
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, mouss wrote:
> running SA at smtp time requires that the client does not timeout.
> so you'd better scan fast! you're also more subject to DOS (your
> smtp listeners are busy). compare this to queue and filter...
okay, here's a sick idea:
(1) MTA completes the SMTP exchange
Hi,
mouss wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
simscan correctly uses an SMTP REJECT (55x code during the smtp
conversation) and it is also possible to use custom reject messages
with simscan so the sender, if any, knows exactly why the message was
rejected.
I have yet to see a good implementati
Rick Macdougall wrote:
simscan correctly uses an SMTP REJECT (55x code during the smtp
conversation) and it is also possible to use custom reject messages
with simscan so the sender, if any, knows exactly why the message was
rejected.
I have yet to see a good implementation of this in Postf
>>
>> Diego Pomatta wrote:
>> > But is not qmail's job to detect spam
>>
>> True.
>>
>> > or tell the sender what the
>> > problem was;
>>
>> True only for your local site policy; most people who reject spam would
>> like to let the sender know so legitimate senders can rearrange their
>> m
Kris Deugau escribió:
I don't drop anything but confirmed viruses on my *personal* mail
system, never mind the systems I'm responsible for at work; I shudder
to think of the cries of outrage if I silently dropped spam on the ISP
mail systems I administer. (There *have* been business-related F
Diego Pomatta wrote:
But is not qmail's job to detect spam
True.
or tell the sender what the
problem was;
True only for your local site policy; most people who reject spam would
like to let the sender know so legitimate senders can rearrange their
message to try again. More generally, i
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió:
> >when we ran qmail, we had false positives, and we did not like the fact we
> >could not tell sender what the problem was...
On 31.07.07 08:41, Diego Pomatta wrote:
> But is not qmail's job to detect spam or tell the sender what the
> problem was; qmail is jus
John Rudd wrote:
dalchri wrote:
Well, I setup MIMEDefang. Everything is working as I want except that
the
(fake) rejected mail does not make it through the milter to Exchange. I
used action_bounce to reject the message in mimedefang-filter.
Is there a way to send the rejection code but still
John Rudd wrote:
dalchri wrote:
Well, I setup MIMEDefang. Everything is working as I want except that
the
(fake) rejected mail does not make it through the milter to Exchange. I
used action_bounce to reject the message in mimedefang-filter.
Is there a way to send the rejection code but still
dalchri wrote:
Well, I setup MIMEDefang. Everything is working as I want except that the
(fake) rejected mail does not make it through the milter to Exchange. I
used action_bounce to reject the message in mimedefang-filter.
Is there a way to send the rejection code but still get the message th
Well, I setup MIMEDefang. Everything is working as I want except that the
(fake) rejected mail does not make it through the milter to Exchange. I
used action_bounce to reject the message in mimedefang-filter.
Is there a way to send the rejection code but still get the message through
the milter
Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió:
when we ran qmail, we had false positives, and we did not like the fact we
could not tell sender what the problem was...
But is not qmail's job to detect spam or tell the sender what the
problem was; qmail is just the MTA, and a damn fine one imho.
A filter/
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, dalchri wrote:
| Although a rejection notice was sent, we still retained the spam. This
| meant that when our users got a call from their customer about the
| rejected spam, they could quickly locate the message without it having
| to be resent.
Hi,
So you want to return
On 30.07.07 17:49, Diego Pomatta wrote:
> No problems here whatsoever.
> And... I don't understand the point. Every piece of software has bugs.
> Even the e-mail client you used to create your msg.-
of course. but qmail has too much of them, some of them are really annoying
(at least for some peo
Rick Macdougall wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Diego Pomatta wrote:
That sounds more like "bounce and return" than "reject". If you
reject, the only chance you get to send an error is in the 1 line SMTP
5xx response code. If you really do mean "bounce and return" (accept
the message with SMTP 2xx
John Rudd wrote:
Diego Pomatta wrote:
That sounds more like "bounce and return" than "reject". If you reject,
the only chance you get to send an error is in the 1 line SMTP 5xx
response code. If you really do mean "bounce and return" (accept the
message with SMTP 2xx code, craft a new messa
Diego Pomatta wrote:
Jim Maul escribió:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
Any idea for qmail?
if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
According to who, you?
He
Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió:
On 30.07.07 14:10, Diego Pomatta wrote:
LoL. qmail rocks.
yes, google for "qmail bugs and withlist" for more info.
No problems here whatsoever.
And... I don't understand the point. Every piece of software has bugs.
Even the e-mail client you used
> >>On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
> >>>Any idea for qmail?
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
> >>MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
> Jim Maul escribió:
> >According to who, you?
> >
>
Jim Maul escribió:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
Any idea for qmail?
if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
According to who, you?
He asked for a solution
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
Any idea for qmail?
if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
According to who, you?
He asked for a solution for qmail. If you d
On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
> Any idea for qmail?
if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receiv
Spamassassin List wrote:
>
> Any idea for qmail?
Look on www.qmail.org for links - e.g. Qmail-Scanner allows you the
option of generating the bounce - or SMTP-level rejecting it as
mentioned in this thread.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9
On 7/30/2007 1:30 AM, I wrote:
> use simscan. http://www.inter7.com/simcsan
oops, that's http://www.inter7.com/simscan
--
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
On 7/30/2007 1:25 AM, Spamassassin List wrote:
> Any idea for qmail?
use simscan. http://www.inter7.com/simcsan
--
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
dalchri wrote:
I've recently put SpamAssassin in front of my Exchange server as an SMTP
proxy. Our previous spam filter would provide a 554 rejection notice for
anything that was identified as spam. This meant that any FP would be
notified so that email would not get silently ignored. Although
dalchri wrote:
> I've recently put SpamAssassin in front of my Exchange server as an SMTP
> proxy. Our previous spam filter would provide a 554 rejection notice for
> anything that was identified as spam. This meant that any FP would be
> notified so that email would not get silently ignored. Al
If you're running sendmail, then spamass-milter is the way to go.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, dalchri wrote:
I've recently put SpamAssassin in front of my Exchange server as an SMTP
proxy. Our previous spam filter would provide a 554 rejection notice for
anything that was identified as spam. This m
32 matches
Mail list logo
