On 7/22/2010 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances
of SPF
On 7/20/2010 1:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It is the other guy who is arguing that
spamfiltering outbound mail is better than port 25 b
Thanks Ted for that example i could not have wrote in english myself.
Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 13:23 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
>
> On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
> >> A forged sender looks no different than a leg
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances
of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
On 7/22/2010 11:03 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to c
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix would
have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances of SPF
fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
a
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some
instances of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
and why not show logs ?
bounces is newer e
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not fqdn
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
show logs
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not fqdn before it bounce :)
--
xpoi
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 18:56 -0600, LuKreme a écrit :
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 18:07, Alexandre Chapellon
> wrote:
>
> > Bouncing spam?? What a good way to become a backscatter source (in
> > addition to spam)!
>
> We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to bo
>> On 20.07.10 00:48, RW wrote:
>>> I was asking what's the point of adding headers or markup that *is*
>>> seen by the recipient.
> On 7/20/2010 4:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I think Brian understood youre question as disagreement :)
>>
>> I think there's no logical point. In case of
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, LuKreme wrote:
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to
bounce internal messages.
Caveat: As long as proper care is taken to send the bounce to the
authenticated sender of the mail and NOT just lamely use the 'From'
header! Still prefer an SM
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 ?? 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a ??crit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mai
On Jul 20, 2010, at 18:07, Alexandre Chapellon
wrote:
> Bouncing spam?? What a good way to become a backscatter source (in
> addition to spam)!
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to bounce
internal messages.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a écrit :
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
> > point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
> > thinks is spam - and if you do tha
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
> point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
> thinks is spam - and if you do that your going to get shot by your users
> over the FPs.
Well, no. If
Sorry it was not directly for you, but more like a general post.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 12:01 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
> You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
> am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
> spamfilter outbound mail. It
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It is the other guy who is arguing that
spamfiltering outbound mail is better than port 25 blocks.
Ted
On 7/20/2010 11:46 AM, Alexandre Ch
You argue about the fficiency of blicking network flow like we do
But beyond argue they are simples facts:
Before I introduce port 25 blocking I had more than 200 feedback loop
complaints daily from differents MSP (Yahoo, AOL, abusix and others).
Since blocking is enabled it I have have less tha
On 7/20/2010 4:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your c
On 7/19/2010 3:55 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 2:25 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few mo
> > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >> It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
> > >> lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
> > >> responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going
> > >>
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:58:49 -0600
Brian Godette wrote:
> On 7/19/2010 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
> >> lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitor
On 7/19/2010 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a lot
more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going to
On 7/19/2010 2:25 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on out
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a lot
> more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
> responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going to
> call you and bitch because
> Blocking outbound 25 from the rest of your network, and disallowing
> submission to your MX on 25 from your network
>, does very little for keeping your own MX from sending spam which is what SA
>on outgoing SMTP would be for.
> It's great from a policy standpoint and contains the "simple" bots
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoi
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to "Block
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to "Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really a
Hi,
On Mon, 19.07.2010 at 09:43:20 -0600, Brian Godette wrote:
> I hope you realize you still need to deal with the issues of users
> with weak/guessable passwords and phishing of account info as well
> as the newer bots that recover account info from Outlook/Outlook
> Express/Thunderbird.
this
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to "Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really afraid of doing so and didn't really wante
Great!
1 down, 19,587,294,872,875 more admins to go! ;-)
Ted
On 7/15/2010 5:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a good
idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to "Block direct port 25 for non-mta
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a good
idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to "Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really afraid of doing so and didn't really wanted to go this
way.
now about 6 months later I have to s
34 matches
Mail list logo