As said the IT master Brian Fantana "60% of the time, it works every time ! "
Ok I'm out ;) -----Original Message----- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl Sent: mardi 29 décembre 2015 19:52 To: sb <se...@runbox.com>; postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org> Subject: Re: 53% of Postfix servers are black-listed (DNSBL) This is baloney. 94% of Exchange servers are open relays but ZERO percent are blacklisted? This entire thing is one steaming pile of crap. --On December 29, 2015 at 1:01:30 PM +0100 sb <se...@runbox.com> wrote: > > 90% of global e-mail is SPAM. > 91% of targeted attacks start with e-mail. > > What is Postfix's share of SPAM? > -------------------------------- > > A recent survey of 2.8M SMTP servers shows the following. > > - 53% of Postfix servers are black-listed (DNSBL) > http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/mta/Postfix.html > > - 44% of open relays are Postfix servers > http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/open-relay/ > > - 35% of Postfix servers are hosted in the USA > http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/mta/Postfix.html > > Who makes Postfix? > ------------------ > > Wietse Venema > IBM T.J. Watson Research > P.O. Box 704 > Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA > > What is Postfix's share of the SMTP server market? > -------------------------------------------------- > > A recent survey of 2.3M SMTP servers shows the following. > ># 1: 53.25% EXIM ># 2: 32.64% POSTFIX ># 3: 6.66% SENDMAIL > http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201511/mxsurvey.html > > What is wrong with Postfix? > --------------------------- > > Suppose you are a school/SME/you-name-it, you want a secure server, > and you run Postfix. The following is what you get in your inbox. > >> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:6:1 > >> From: paulnoah@ > >> Message-ID: <8038f16fe88ca0b6a66649d005c232e9@localhost.localdomain> > >> Received: from 1-160-101-156.dynamic.hinet.net ([1.160.101.156]:52001 >> helo=uwtir.com) by seth.lunarpages.com with esmtpsa [...] > >> Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> zimbra.baycix.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7078416A85 [...] > >> Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1062.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; > 25 Dec 2015 23:24:21 -0000 > >> Received: from uhosp.example.com ([37.230.116.83]) > >> Received: [...] >> ... >> Message-ID: [...] <----------- >> Delivered-To: [...] >> Received: [...] >> Received: [...] > > [anonymised] >> To: <y...@your-domain.com> >> ... >> Reply-To: <y...@your-domain.com> > > There are more examples, and the all reduce to Postfix accepting > incoming e-mail whose origin and envelope are not RFC compliant. > > In fact, the task of writing PCRE parsers and policies is delegated to > the user, that is you, as part of your own configuration (access, > helo_access, header_checks, etc). > > Writing such parsers and policies is highly rewarding: my servers > reject 95% of SPAM by rejecting non-RFC-compliant e-mails, without any > DNSxL or anti-spam add-on. The task required months of full-time > labour. The same task cannot be brought to completion, however. > > The postfix-users forum would be a good place where to discuss > Postfix's problems in detail. However, the same forum is rather > focused on self-celebration than active collaboration, where attempts > to address SPAM as a problem are scornfully dismissed. Given the above > statistics, this is no longer surprising. > > Postfix is easy on the spammers and hard on the honest. > > unsubscribe postfix-users > "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson Paul Schmehl (pschm...@tx.rr.com) Independent Researcher
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
