Le 13/10/2010 21:11, Costin Gusa a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 22:03, mouss<mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
Le 13/10/2010 00:43, Costin Gusa a écrit :
see, mouss, that's the reason in my systems this email would have
never got a chance for "220 OK", even without any external spam filter
in place.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 22:42, The Doctor<doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>
wrote:
Doctor Who saying in the 1970s.
What do I need to reverse.
Tried another MTA and got reports that people were not getting e-mail.
All right switch back.
Forgot that the 'sendmail' was not the correct one.
No problem, just use the postfix sendmail.
Hmm!! No mail is getting delievered.
What did I forget?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici
doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist
rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Are you a real human: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm
...because of the following header:
Received: from localhost (localhost.nl2k.ab.ca [127.0.0.1])
by doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2030912CFC90
for<postfix-users@postfix.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:01:47 -0600
(MDT)
then you're wrong. localhost is ok in an internal header. while you can
check internal headers for spam signs, you should play on the safe side
here. if you're new to the game, go on. but believe me, it is a "marathon"
and you should not run too fast in the beginning! do not try to stop any one
spam at the cost of spending your day and at the cost of blocking legitimate
mail. the goal is not to block _all_ spam. the goal is to make the costs of
dealing with spam low enough.
eh, sorry for rushing too fast, I red the wrong header, I misthought
that host said "helo localhost" to cloud9 :)
but anyway, 95% of my rejects are on helos+rbl+user unknown
same here. 94% here with only "safe" checks:
- 75% rejects: recipient unknown
- 11%: local BL (snowshoe)
- 8%: spamhaus
