On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, peter dunaskin wrote:
> >> # -
> >> # FILTER SETTINGS:
> >> set block-policy drop
> >> set skip on lo0
> >> set loginterface $ext_if
> >> set limit table-entries 25
> >
> >A guess: the table-entries limits the total table
>> # -
>> # FILTER SETTINGS:
>> set block-policy drop
>> set skip on lo0
>> set loginterface $ext_if
>> set limit table-entries 25
>
>A guess: the table-entries limits the total table entries 183469+70604
>is larger than 25.
You're right,
> > [private email from bob saying "you've screwed up, show me this"]
>
> [public reply spewing output to list.]
Obviously you still have a configuration problem, but if I contact
you in a private email to sort out your problem because I am willing
to help you, and you then start spewing
> I don't see anything obvious, other than if you
>have somehow broken your system to pfctl can't add the addreses
>to the table.
>
>try
>
>pfctl -tspamd-white -Tadd 111.111.111.111 && pfctl -tspamd-white -Tshow
>
> Do you see the address addeed to the table when you do it
>manually?
I
>> What could be wrong? What have I been missing?
>
> probably a pf rules thing, (not logging port 25 connections, etc.)
This is content of my pf.conf:
# -
# TABLES AND VARIABLES:
ext_if="rl0"
table persist
table persist
# -
> > >You forgot spamlogd
> > I did not, it starts automatically when spamd_grey is enabled in
>Oh. Sorry. I didn's see it in your ps grep. I see it with the same
>ps grep on my system.
>
>dumbcat[root]# ps aux | grep spamd
>_spamd 14450 0.0 0.1 9040 1376 ?? IsTue12AM1:53.41 spa
* peter dunaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-05 20:15]:
>
> I can send all pf.conf or other config files upon demand, but it's
> pretty much the default. spamd.conf is the same as default except that
> I added Bob Beck's blaklist and it doesn't have to do anything with
> greylisting anyway.
>
> W
peter dunaskin writes:
> > > My configuration:
> >You forgot spamlogd
> I did not, it starts automatically when spamd_grey is enabled in
Oh. Sorry. I didn's see it in your ps grep. I see it with the same
ps grep on my system.
dumbcat[root]# ps aux | grep spamd
_spamd 14450 0.0 0.1 9
> > My configuration:
>You forgot spamlogd
I did not, it starts automatically when spamd_grey is enabled in
rc.conf. And I just tried to raise pf table-entries limit to 25
(default is 100k which is less than 180k I have in my spamdb
whitelist) but that didn't seem to fix the problem.
p.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:47:59AM -0500, Polkan Garcia wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The -g flag is not neccesary in rc.conf, when the system receive the
> proccess add it:
that is false.
during the execution of /etc/rc, spamd will be invoked with
'-g' if it is specified in "${spamd_flags}" or if "${
> These logs indicate that the machien above successfully retried
> and was whitelisted. All that means is that the *next* time it retries
> it will get through. This attempt was still given a 450 at 09:32.
> the next retry after 09:33 should be sent to the real server, assuming
> you have y
> The spamd log include two different entries, the spamassassin daemon
> (spamd) and spamd openbsd:
>
> Jul 13 09:32:56 www2 spamd[25447]: (GREY) 200.xxx.xxx.xxx:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jul 13 09:32:56 www2 spamd[25447]: 200.xxx.xxx.xxx: disconnected after
> 11 seconds.
> Ju
Hi,
The -g flag is not neccesary in rc.conf, when the system receive the
proccess add it:
_spamd 25447 0.0 0.4 9172 4268 ?? S 9:07AM
0:00.04 /usr/libexec/spamd -v -G 8:4:864 -g
The spamd log include two different entries, the spamassassin daemon
(spamd) and spamd openbsd:
Jul 13 09:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:44:34PM -0500, Polkan Garcia wrote:
>
> The original idea is, the mail sent to openbsd server is checked by
> spamd and next is sent to sendmail to process it. Now, send messages to
> openbsd's box and works fine (using spamdb output) but does not
> delivered to sendmail
Hi, my original problem was solved... (cisco pix bug)
Now, i have another :(
In the openbsd server i have sendmail, smtp-vilter, clamd, spamassassin,
etc.
The original idea is, the mail sent to openbsd server is checked by
spamd and next is sent to sendmail to process it. Now, send messages to
o
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:23:21PM -0500, Polkan Garcia wrote:
> My firewall is a cisco pix
'no fixup smtp' would be what i would do if i was in a situation
where my traffic _had_ to go through a PIX i _could not_ get rid of.
there is no shortage of evidence on the internet of PIXs'
no fixup smtp is the only thing that will help you. The PIX's
smtp nonsense is utterly broken. If you look, it's even in the microsoft
knowledge base for problems it causes in front of mmmSexChange servers.
-Bob
* Polkan Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-12 11:36]:
> Hi all :)
Hi again,
The problem was the cisco pix firewall i disable on it tcp window
scaling and all works fine.
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 12:23 -0500, Polkan Garcia wrote:
> Hi all :)
>
> I researching find this:
>
> "...This is the sign of a Cisco Pix 4Mailguard! sitting in front of your
> MTA. Pix
Hi all :)
I researching find this:
"...This is the sign of a Cisco Pix 4Mailguard! sitting in front of your
MTA. Pix breaks ESMTP and only does SMTP. It is a nuisance when you have
a secure MTA running on your box. Something like 4no fixup protocol smtp
25! in the Pix configuration is needed. It
19 matches
Mail list logo
