--On Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:50 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
diff -u ???
I'll attach privately the diff's from your version ( CVS)
Now that's a heck of a tactic LOL :)
oh yes, i forgot the most amusing thing about it. it not only sent it to
a subset of the spammer d
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 17:01 -0700 Michael Loftis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:50 +1100 Craig Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
diff -u ???
I'll attach privately the diff's from your version ( CVS)
Actually as it turns out I can't send mail directl
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 05:01:33PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> So it's your fault they figured out the forged MAIL FROM trick! Bad
> craig, no donut! ;)
no, many of them already knew that. it was obvious anyway.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
T
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:20:28AM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> >i certainly wouldn't recommend running it on a large installation.
> >i'm surprised you even tried.
>
> Well, we're very anti-spam, and willing ot try anything to help...I
> had to disable it after we got around ~8K rules in the tab
Am 2004-12-09 19:04:49, schrieb Richard Zuidhof:
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
> cbl.abuseat.org is included in xbl.spamhaus.org so it is not needed to
> use both. If you use sbl.spamhaus.org I do not see why not to use
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org had never FP
> bl.spamcop.net as well. Both have some coll
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 22:48 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:18:16PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 16:43 +1100 Craig Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DoS is a huge exaggeration. a few smtpd processes waiting to t
On Friday 10 December 2004 09:36, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> (1) If SPF HELO checking is on and lookup matches connecting IP
> --> PASS
[..]
> Otherwise, return 517 HELO $hostname does not match $remote-ip
Sorry to reply to myself, but this sequence is more complicated if SPF
checking is turned
[CC'ing Bill Taroli who has been helping me with this on courier-user]
On Friday 10 December 2004 07:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 00:39, Mark Bucciarelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > I've recently turned on EHLO/HELO validation and am encouraged by how
> > effectiv
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> I tried out "reject_unknown_hostname" but had to turn it off, too many
> machines had unknown hostnames.
>
> For example a zone foo.com has a SMTP server named postfix1 and puts
> postfix1.foo.com in the EHLO command but has an extern
On Friday 10 December 2004 00:39, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've recently turned on EHLO/HELO validation and am encouraged by how
> effective it is. WIth RBL's (spamcop and dnsbl) and SpamAssassin 3, only
> 88% of spam was stopped. So far, it's 100%. (This is a _very_ small
Penbrock wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:18:16PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On Friday, December 10, 2004 16:43 +1100 Craig Sanders
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >DoS is a huge exaggeration. a few smtpd processes waiting to timeout
> >does not constitute a DoS. neither does a few dozen.
>
> I had about 8
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 20.41, mimo wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> >On Friday 03 December 2004 20:07, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>(And - this to Stephen Frost, I believe - there is a patch to postgrey
> >>which I will include in the next version, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
