$B!T6[5^>pJs$N$*CN$i$;!*4JC13N<[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
(B
$B!!"!!|"!%Q%V%j%C%/#S#O#H#O"!!|"!(B
(B
$B!y!!(B http://my.formman.com/form/pc/yOtRNQD5yfYtIeHW/$B!!!y(B
(B
>
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
instance,
> will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF checking on
their
> own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their DNS. their
users have
> legitimate needs to send mail using their address fro
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> Check spf.pobox.com
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccol
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > > wrong way.
> >
> > no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> > a
>
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
instance,
> will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF checking on
their
> own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their DNS. their
users have
> legitimate needs to send mail using their address fro
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:01:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> > the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> > mail is rejected with a
It's a good paper to start for learning about basics of spam blocking.
As you already mentioned: most of it is still a must for every mailserver today.
But interesting: 4xx instead of 5xx is used successful by greylisting!
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Yves Junqueira" <[EMAIL PR
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> Check spf.pobox.com
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccol
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > > wrong way.
> >
> > no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> > a
This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a consensus,
like using 4xx error codes instead of 5xx for denying spam. Anyway, it
instigates more profund analysis from the mail admin.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2505
You mean http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt.
Very nice idea to perhaps avoid some percent of spam. The only problem:
It has nothing to do with the reality out in the world and net respectively.
It's only shifting the job of blacklisting ip's to domains.
Sit back a while
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:01:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> > the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> > mail is rejected with a
It's a good paper to start for learning about basics of spam blocking.
As you already mentioned: most of it is still a must for every mailserver today.
But interesting: 4xx instead of 5xx is used successful by greylisting!
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Yves Junqueira" <[EMAIL PR
This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a consensus,
like using 4xx error codes instead of 5xx for denying spam. Anyway, it
instigates more profund analysis from the mail admin.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2505
You mean http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt.
Very nice idea to perhaps avoid some percent of spam. The only problem:
It has nothing to do with the reality out in the world and net respectively.
It's only shifting the job of blacklisting ip's to domains.
Sit back a while
SPF is a proposed standard.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
Check spf.pobox.com
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccolo Rigacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm
SPF is a proposed standard.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
Check spf.pobox.com
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccolo Rigacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm
Hola!
(2) http://jodies.de/ipcalc
My answer to (2) in intl. language :-)
apt-get install sipcalc
I know that is a international list but i'm a brazilian and a mail from .com.br
...
Tipow vc precisa ler um pouco + sobre quebras de rede e roteamento
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:00:24 -0300
Djalma Fadel Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello everybody,
>
> FIRSTLY:
>
> I'm not sure
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> mail is rejected with an explicative 550.
You aren't the only one who does that. I have foun
Hola!
(2) http://jodies.de/ipcalc
My answer to (2) in intl. language :-)
apt-get install sipcalc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know that is a international list but i'm a brazilian and a mail from .com.br ...
Tipow vc precisa ler um pouco + sobre quebras de rede e roteamento
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:00:24 -0300
Djalma Fadel Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello everybody,
>
> FIRSTLY:
>
> I'm not sure i
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > wrong way.
>
> no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> almost all viruses come direct from dynamic IP addresses.
I repeat for the la
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> mail is rejected with an explicative 550.
You aren't the only one who does that. I have foun
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:26:49AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
>
> > I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> > perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> > mails were being
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
> I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> mails were being blackholed at my host. They never got an answer or
> even a bounce.
Huh? Either your servers ar
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
> >von Bidder wrote:
> >
> >Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
> >unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder wrote:
Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't be answered.
I think the important part here is not the host, but the domain. If th
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > > blocking me.
>
> > [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> > answered blocks a lot of fo
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > wrong way.
>
> no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> almost all viruses come direct from dynamic IP addresses.
I repeat for the la
Only a small note:
You mean '... getting SIEVE shell ...' or better the perl module 'managesieve'
working!
It's up to you writing sieve scripts directly (check syntax by yourself!) into
/var/spool/sieve///default
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Klaus Schiwinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:26:49AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
>
> > I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> > perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> > mails were being
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > blocking me.
> [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> answered blocks a lot of forged sender spam too, something like 80%
> here, being conservative.
You did say two different thi
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
> I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> mails were being blackholed at my host. They never got an answer or
> even a bounce.
Huh? Either your servers ar
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
> >von Bidder wrote:
> >
> >Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
> >unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder wrote:
Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't be answered.
I think the important part here is not the host, but the domain. If th
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > > blocking me.
>
> > [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> > answered blocks a lot of for
Only a small note:
You mean '... getting SIEVE shell ...' or better the perl module 'managesieve' working!
It's up to you writing sieve scripts directly (check syntax by yourself!) into
/var/spool/sieve///default
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Klaus Schiwinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
38 matches
Mail list logo
