thanks for your responses. unfortunatly i lost all my local mail when
my laptop exploded friday :(
does this list have an online archive?
On May 26, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
does this list have an online archive?
Yes. Google it.
On 22-May-2009, at 06:14, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
- greylisting
I do this to great effect, but not for all servers (see below)
- rejecting broken HELO at smtp time (such as MUMS_XP_BOX)
Yep, I reject a lot of messages based on helos
- rejecting dynamic IPS at smtp time (PBL)
I
On 22-May-2009, at 07:29, John Hardin wrote:
They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic
with a message like your HELO should be your actual public FQDN,
you moron. (worded more politely, of course)
That about as polite as is necessary for a misconfigured server.
--
On 22-May-2009, at 15:30, mouss wrote:
on the other hand, you can block some known values/suffixes/
expressions.
here are a few recent real life samples
dynamic.ranchi.bb.59.92.92.92/24.bsnl.in
static.chandigarh.bb.59.94.224.236/24.bsnl.in
161.185.225.124.null.hi.!dynamic.163data.com.cn
On Sun, 24 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
/\.(dsl|\d+dls|dsl\d+)\./ REJECT Dynamic DSL looking
address
dLs? typo?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 --
On 24-May-2009, at 09:45, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
/\.(dsl|\d+dls|dsl\d+)\./ REJECT Dynamic DSL
looking address
dLs? typo?
Yep, thanks for that.
--
Anybody who could duck the Vietnam war can certainly duck a couple of
shoes. -- Chris
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Greetings.
I'm thinking of implementing:
- greylisting
- honeypots
- rejecting broken HELO at smtp time (such as MUMS_XP_BOX)
- rejecting dynamic IPS at smtp time (PBL)
- firewalling hosts with 100% spam, forever.
Are there any oposing opinions on those?
I
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:14 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Greetings.
I'm thinking of implementing:
- greylisting
very effective. I cut my incoming mail by about 80% when we put up
greylisting. I'm using sqlgrey.
- honeypots
- rejecting broken HELO at smtp time (such as
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:06 AM, McDonald, Dan
dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:14 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Greetings.
I'm thinking of implementing:
- greylisting
very effective. I cut my incoming mail by about 80% when we put up
greylisting. I'm
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Greetings.
I'm thinking of implementing:
- greylisting
- honeypots
- rejecting broken HELO at smtp time (such as MUMS_XP_BOX)
- rejecting dynamic IPS at smtp time (PBL)
- firewalling hosts with 100% spam, forever.
Are there any oposing
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:06 AM, McDonald, Dan
dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:14 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
- rejecting broken HELO at smtp time (such as MUMS_XP_BOX)
We had too many false-positives when I
On 22.05.09 06:29, John Hardin wrote:
They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic with a
message like your HELO should be your actual public FQDN, you moron.
(worded more politely, of course)
yes, it should be, but you also MUST NOT reject if it is not.
There are
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:14 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Greetings.
I'm thinking of implementing:
- greylisting
On 22.05.09 08:06, McDonald, Dan wrote:
very effective. I cut my incoming mail by about 80% when we put up
greylisting. I'm using sqlgrey.
You apparently don't have
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.05.09 06:29, John Hardin wrote:
They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic with a
message like your HELO should be your actual public FQDN, you moron.
(worded more politely, of course)
yes, it should be, but you also MUST NOT
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.05.09 06:29, John Hardin wrote:
They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic with a
message like your HELO should be your actual public FQDN, you moron.
(worded more politely, of course)
yes, it should be, but you
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.05.09 06:29, John Hardin wrote:
They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic with a
message like your HELO should be your actual public FQDN, you moron.
(worded more politely, of course)
yes, it should be, but
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects
connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message (even
with different wording).
Ok, agreed. If they don't match don't reject, just give that a point.
John Hardin a écrit :
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects
connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message (even
with different wording).
Ok, agreed. If they don't match don't reject,
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects
connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message (even
with different wording).
Ok, agreed. If they don't match don't reject, just
On Fri, 22 May 2009, mouss wrote:
John Hardin a écrit :
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects
connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message (even
with different wording).
Ok, agreed.
John Hardin a écrit :
On Fri, 22 May 2009, mouss wrote:
John Hardin a écrit :
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects
connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message
(even
with different
22 matches
Mail list logo
