On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:10, the author Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
contributed to the dialogue on-
Re: postgrey question:
>On Jun 2, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Vizion wrote:
>> I do not know I buy that argument. The way I see it as a user of
>> this list -
>> it ain&#x
On Jun 2, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Vizion wrote:
I do not know I buy that argument. The way I see it as a user of
this list -
it ain't broken as far as I am concerned and so I'd rather it not
be fixed.
My feeling is that you would be doing people a bigger favor by
letting them
sort out their own
On Thursday 02 June 2005 12:27, the author Bart Silverstrim contributed to
the dialogue on-
Re: postgrey question:
>On Jun 2, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>>> On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart
On Jun 2, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
If people keep accepting broken implementation as the status quo,
we're
going to keep getting people who leave broken imp
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
If people keep accepting broken implementation as the status quo,
we're
going to keep getting people who leave broken implementations in
place.
I have to agree with you on that one
On 6/1/05, Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 12:44 pm, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
> > That's where I was a little confused (kirk? Insight, clarification?)
> > because I thought that line would have it pass the message to another
> > queue on port 10023 of the loc
On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> If people keep accepting broken implementation as the status quo, we're
> going to keep getting people who leave broken implementations in place.
I have to agree with you on that one. Greylisting is no more non-standard
than saying "I'm
On Jun 1, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
[description of postgrey snipped]
The main advantage of this is that spammers and viruses have massive
amount of email lists and just try to send it to as many people as
possible. They are not going to wait and try to send the e-mail
again
On Jun 1, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently I'm running pos
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 12:44 pm, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> That's where I was a little confused (kirk? Insight, clarification?)
> because I thought that line would have it pass the message to another
> queue on port 10023 of the localhost, like the way Amavis runs.
That's correct.
> I didn't
On Jun 1, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC said:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and
clamav), and saw an article on
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC said:
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
>> I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
>> Currently I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and
>> clamav), and saw an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns
>> out
Philip Hallstrom said:
> [description of postgrey snipped]
>
>> The main advantage of this is that spammers and viruses have massive
>> amount
>> of email lists and just try to send it to as many people as possible.
>> They
>> are not going to wait and try to send the e-mail again, thus you
>> effe
[description of postgrey snipped]
The main advantage of this is that spammers and viruses have massive amount
of email lists and just try to send it to as many people as possible. They
are not going to wait and try to send the e-mail again, thus you effectively
block many amount of spam and vi
On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and
clamav), and saw an ar
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and
clamav), and saw an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns
out ther
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and
clamav), and saw an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns
out there's a port for it already in FreeBSD.
Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Are there instructions you know of for the installation to get
> >> postgrey
> >> to integrate with postfix from ports on FreeBSD? (Huh?)
> >>
>
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there instructions you know of for the installation to get
postgrey
to integrate with postfix from ports on FreeBSD? (Huh?)
Um...let's rephrase. Is there a reference of what needs to be done
after
Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
> >> Currently
> >> I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and clama
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 09:07, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> Anyone else running postgrey with amavis on postfix, on FreeBSD? I'd
> appreciate any feedback/experiences people have to offer.
I had an article published on exactly that. See if this helps you:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/fre
On Jun 1, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering.
Currently
I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and clamav), and
saw
an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns out ther
Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering. Currently
> I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and clamav), and saw
> an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns out there's a port for
> it already in FreeBSD.
>
>
I've been looking into ways of improving our spam filtering. Currently
I'm running postfix with amavisd-new (spamassassin and clamav), and saw
an article on greylisting using postgrey. Turns out there's a port for
it already in FreeBSD.
I am still googling for info, but as I understand it th
24 matches
Mail list logo
