ager39...@mypacks.net writes:
> What rules should I have in "pf.conf" for both greylisting and
> blacklisting? I'd like to blacklist those site that got spam through
> the greylisting.
Unless you explicitly start spamd in blacklisting-only mode, it will
greylist.
The spamd related rules I have
"Satadru Pramanik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way to enable greylisting based upon the subnet mask of the
> sending mailhost without patching spamd & spamlogd?
Well, like Bob Beck pointed out, there is a real chance that this will
open the floodgates a little too much.
It's alway
* Satadru Pramanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-13 16:00]:
> I have OpenBSD 4.0 setup with spamd doing greylisting for a mail
> server, and I am having a problem with more and more companies sending
> mail that is getting stuck in spamd from having a pool of mail servers
> sending mail from several
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:52:30 -0700, Stephen Schaff wrote:
>Just for the archives...
>I went through these emails again, and discovered that this one was
>the one that solved my problem. Indeed the default pf.conf file says
>"rdr pass on" for the spamd redirects, and Chris asks why pass there?
Just for the archives...
I went through these emails again, and discovered that this one was
the one that solved my problem. Indeed the default pf.conf file says
"rdr pass on" for the spamd redirects, and Chris asks why pass there?
I removed the word "pass" - now it all works like magic.
T
Hmmm - should sis1 have an IP?
On 9-Jan-07, at 3:54 PM, Stephen Schaff wrote:
That's what I'm starting to think...
hostname.sis0: (management interface)
inet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.0 NONE
hostname.sis1:
up
hostname.sis2:
up
bridgename.bridge0:
add sis1
add sis2
up
pf.conf: (as per ht
That's what I'm starting to think...
hostname.sis0: (management interface)
inet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.0 NONE
hostname.sis1:
up
hostname.sis2:
up
bridgename.bridge0:
add sis1
add sis2
up
pf.conf: (as per http://undeadly.org/cgi?
action=article&sid=20061108134508)
ext_if="sis1"
mailserv
What is the output of ps? e.g, do you have spamlogd running:
$ ps ax | fgrep spam
23906 ?? Is 0:09.48 spamd: (pf update) (spamd)
29836 ?? I 0:06.73 /usr/libexec/spamd -v -b 127.0.0.1 -S 60 -g
778 ?? I 0:00.02 spamd: (/var/db/spamd update) (spamd)
25919 ?? Is 0:00.18 /u
Sounds to me like your pf rules and/or bridge setup
are not set up correctly to allow the connections to be redirected.
-Bob
* Stephen Schaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-08 18:52]:
> tail -f /var/log/daemon shows:
>
> Jan 8 02:23:38 spamd spamd[4966]: listening for incoming co
do you mean the second rdr on the !?
well, I'm going from the example found here:
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061108134508
There's a thread about that on that page. It's my understanding that
the first rdr quickly handles everything on the blacklist which is a
subset of the
Thank you for your help - it still doesn't seem to be working.
Nothing is showing up in the GREY list from spamdb and nothing is
getting appended to /var/log/daemon except the listening for
connections line at startup
A more important problem right now is that I can't connect to the
mail s
tail -f /var/log/daemon shows:
Jan 8 02:23:38 spamd spamd[4966]: listening for incoming connections.
That's it.
Stephen
On 8-Jan-07, at 3:54 AM, edgarz wrote:
They should be.
tail -f /var/log/daemon
there they are.
Stephen Schaff wrote:
I've set up spamd on a soekris bridge. It seems to be
spamd_flags="-G 5:4:864 -v"
spamd_grey=YES
Stephen Schaff wrote:
tail -f /var/log/daemon shows:
Jan 8 02:23:38 spamd spamd[4966]: listening for incoming connections.
That's it.
Stephen
On 8-Jan-07, at 3:54 AM, edgarz wrote:
They should be.
tail -f /var/log/daemon
there they are.
Stephen
They should be.
tail -f /var/log/daemon
there they are.
Stephen Schaff wrote:
I've set up spamd on a soekris bridge. It seems to be working for the
most part. However, when I used spamdb to view the database - it only
shows WHITE entries. It appears there are no GREY entries. Have I
configured
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 10:20:15AM +0530, Ramdas wrote:
> I have just started using OpenBSD & Spamd.
Good stuff. I think you'll find your spam load drops significantly!
> Should I :
> a) Now bypass the load balancer's virtual ip and advertise the actual
> ip of these servers as MX.
> b) I have t
On 12/28/06, Dan Brosemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 10:20:15AM +0530, Ramdas wrote:
> I have just started using OpenBSD & Spamd.
Good stuff. I think you'll find your spam load drops significantly!
Yes, the spam traffic is down.
> Should I :
> a) Now bypass the load
On 12/21/05, Lukas Kubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
> public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
> gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is being greylisted on our spamd
> server. The problem is the
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Moritz Grimm wrote:
Joseph C. Bender wrote:
Instead, I suggest to use a ``no rdr'' line after rdr'ing those in the
blacklists to spamd.
Actually, yes, because it makes your filter rulesets easier to parse
visually, but you want the "no rdr" *first*. This is the conf
Joseph C. Bender wrote:
Instead, I suggest to use a ``no rdr'' line after rdr'ing those in the
blacklists to spamd.
Actually, yes, because it makes your filter rulesets easier to parse
visually, but you want the "no rdr" *first*. This is the configuration
that we are using.
Uh well, to
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Moritz Grimm wrote:
rdr pass on $EXT_IF inet proto tcp from to any port 25 ->
127.0.0.1 port smtp <== add this line
rdr pass on $EXT_IF inet proto tcp from to any port 25 ->
127.0.0.1 port 8025
rdr pass on $EXT_IF inet proto tcp from ! to any port smtp ->
127.0.0.1 port 80
Nick Ryan wrote:
We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
In addition to that, they also appear to be retrying either too fast or
too slow ... *sigh*
rdr pass on $EXT_IF inet proto tcp from
> I don't make any exceptions. I tell users sending me email to
> repeatedly submit the message or contact the relevant support staff to
> fix their servers. Obviously this is never going to cause Yahoo and
> Google to change their email strategy... But I relish the challenge.
> I'm a purist at
On 21/12/05, Jim Razmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Lukas Kubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051221 05:59]:
> > We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
> > public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
> > gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is be
* Lukas Kubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051221 05:59]:
> We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
> public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
> gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is being greylisted on our spamd
> server. The problem is the
On 12/21/05, Lukas Kubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
> public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
> gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is being greylisted on our spamd
> server. The problem is th
> /root/whitelist.txt:
> 216.239.32.0/19 #gmail servers
I just allowed all the announcements I saw from their AS for now.
64.233.160/19
66.102/20
66.249.64/19
72.14.192/19
72.14.224/20
216.239.32/19
Unless you run a site with enough users that they stay whitelisted
anyway, the larger shared
> We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's gmail
> public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The first time
> gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is being greylisted on our spamd
> server. The problem is the next time it tries to repeat the
> transmission, it
Thus Lukas Kubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake on Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:55:30
+0100:
> We have a problem getting mail from gmail through spamd. Google's
> gmail public mail service use a large number of smtp servers. The
> first time gmail tries to contact our smtp, it is being greylisted on
> our spamd
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:11:58PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >Perhaps it'd be an improvement to spamd to report to the client on how
> >it got decided to block or greylist the IP, as that can come quite handy
> >if debugging is needed (i.e. legitimate mail doesn't get through even
> >after
Hello!
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 05:56:45PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>Hello!
>I'm trying to deliver a mail (a bug report) from source IP
> 212.227.35.69
>and seem to not get it through.
>Some time earlier I had the same problem, and even after many retries
>(i.e. after more time than the gr
30 matches
Mail list logo
