On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
> > monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
i also w
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
> > monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
> > from
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
> monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
> from client IPs that commit various spammish-looking crimes against my
> sys
Thanks alot I now have MailScanner scanning all my messages :). How ever I
have one minor(?) problem, sendmail movers messages to the mqueue.in ,
MailScanner scans them and moves them to the /mqueue like it should,...
but the messages just sit there. Do I now need to change procmail?
-Origin
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On Thursday, December 09, 2004 01:12 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >if it's a false positive, the sender will get a bounce from their MTA and
> >they can fix the problem or route around it. IMO, that's
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 07:41:12PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > Received: from [217.226.195.183] by web60309.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon,
> > > 29 Nov 2004 19:12:36 CET Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> SpamAssassin looks at all the headers. If this is a good choice or not
> is
--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 16:04 +0200 Ian Forbes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 15:00, Russell Coker wrote:
I agree that we don't want to be nice to spammers. But there is also
the issue of being nice in the case of false-positives.
I think, that a permanent er
--On Thursday, December 09, 2004 01:12 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
if it's a false positive, the sender will get a bounce from their MTA and
they can fix the problem or route around it. IMO, that's far nicer to
legit senders than them not knowing that their mail isn't being d
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 23:56 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Yahoo server IP address space should not be in a dialup class. If that
> happens then notify the person maintaining the dialup-list that you use that
> they have an inaccuracy.
This is incorrect when you look at the headers.
> > Receive
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 15:30 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> opm.blitzed.org
> But now I have removed all exept the first two. "spamhaus"
> catchs more then 50% of my spams and "abuseat" around 10%.
> The rest is done by "Blacklists" and spamassassin.
Spamhaus XBL i
Hello,
the company I am working for is currently looking for Debian-friendly
hosting (colocation) companies operating in China, Indonesia and India,
more specifically in Beijing, Guangzhou, Jakarta and Mumbai. These can
be different companies, of course. The important points are:
- Debian-frien
Am 2004-12-05 10:54:03, schrieb Marek Podmaka:
> Hello debian-isp,
>
> which blacklists do you use to block spam emails on production
> boxes? I use relays.ordb.org and list.dsbl.org and now I have read
> about Spamhaus SBL and XBL on their website. What are your
> experiences with it?
I
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 15:00, Russell Coker wrote:
> I agree that we don't want to be nice to spammers. But there is also
> the issue of being nice in the case of false-positives.
I think, that a permanent error is the best response for a
false-positive.
The sender will then receive a b
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:00:42AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:16, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Craig, why do you think it's undesirable to do so?
> >
> > because i dont want the extra retry traffic. i want spammers to take FOAD
> > as an answer
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:16, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Craig, why do you think it's undesirable to do so?
>
> because i dont want the extra retry traffic. i want spammers to take FOAD
> as an answer, and i dont want to welcome them with a pleasant "please try
> again lat
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:32, daniele becchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Odd, since we don't see this. And when it does happen to 'big' mail
> > senders it's never AOL for one (they're on the whitelist). And it's
> > totally automatic so if they do end up on it's usually for less than
Greetings!
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:25:05 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you ignore really stupid annoyances like the fact that it can't
> reject a message at the SMTP level, it *always* accepts and then
> bounces it".
Current mailstats on my private server (postfix) tell me:
--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:32 +0100 daniele becchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if i would have used rbl checks in postfix instead of spamassim i would
never receive that mail, right?
the tracked ip is of course 217.226.195.186 and not the yahoo ip
216.109.118.120.
Or i didn't understan
Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 09:34 +0100 Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Various AOL mailservers, the Debian mailservers, and other servers
sending out lots of regular mail get listed in spamcop regularly, so my
recommendation (and that o
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Ian Forbes wrote:
> Hi All
>
Look here:
http://wiki.osuosl.org/display/LNX/Debian+on+Dell+Servers
and here:
http://linux.dell.com/
--
Emmanuel Lacour Easter-eggs
44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France -
Hi All
I have been asked to advise on the installation of Debian on a new Dell
server.
The client is keen on a "PowerEdge 2800". From their spec this has a
"PERC4" SCSI raid controller on board.
From what I can see "PERC3" used an Adaptec chipset which is well
supported in the latest kernels.
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 07:51:13PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2004 09:55, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very
> > well. I don't mind handling the extra retry traffic if it means
> > legitima
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 09:55, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very well.
> I don't mind handling the extra retry traffic if it means legitimate mail
> on a 'grey/pink' host is just temporarily rejected or delayed wh
also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.12.08.0425 +0100]:
> yes, but it's generally better to pick a good horse rather than
> a three-legged, half-blind bad-tempered mule that is well past
> retirement age.
rofl!
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 19:18, "W.D.McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Qmail is not in Debian. Even the qmail-src package is no longer in
> > Debian. This makes it significantly more difficult to manage Qmail Debian
> > servers.
>
> Well if you don't like compiling from src, then head
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 19:06 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:35, "W.D.McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
>
> It's just a pity that hotmail and yahoo have so many users that it's
> inconvenie
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:35, "W.D.McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
It's just a pity that hotmail and yahoo have so many users that it's
inconvenient to block them entirely.
> No worries, this list is about Debian
27 matches
Mail list logo
