sorry I make a mistake and send my mail at the wrong mailling list
Le 24/07/07, syl<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a icrit :
qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
donc ca reste
pas fait pour moi
2007/7/24, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jac
Sorry I made a mistake and send the message at the wrong mailling list,
I'm very confused , since this morning I do not stop to make mistake...
Maybe the amount of beer drank yesterday may help find a reason to my
miscalculation
2007/7/24, Yannick Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/7/24, Stuar
2007/7/24, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2007/07/24 13:53, syl wrote:
> qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
> donc ca reste
> pas fait pour moi
If you're going to write in French on an English-language mailing
list, please can you at least try an
On 2007/07/24 13:53, syl wrote:
> qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
> donc ca reste
> pas fait pour moi
If you're going to write in French on an English-language mailing
list, please can you at least try and use the correct accents (it's
a lot harder to tra
qui ce devout pour faire le site car finalement le ror ca reste du web
donc ca reste
pas fait pour moi
2007/7/24, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> heh. oh, and rod, you're right about the outbound IPs, that was my
confusion
> .
Masking
On 2007/07/24 06:37, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> heh. oh, and rod, you're right about the outbound IPs, that was my confusion
> .
Masking on /24 in spamlogd would help with this for many sites.
Craig Skinner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:01:07AM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
even when running in pure greylisting mode, i get almost no spam
(assuming users are not retarded and don't whitelist bad hosts). the
only thing worth watching for is organizations that use their email as
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:01:07 -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
>for domains that have multiple MX records, it might be nice to have all
>those IPs whitelisted when sending to that domain. maybe this is already
>done or there is a reason it isn't :). guess someone could publish a
>list of bogus IP
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:01:07AM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
>
> even when running in pure greylisting mode, i get almost no spam
> (assuming users are not retarded and don't whitelist bad hosts). the
> only thing worth watching for is organizations that use their email as a
> short lead-
RW wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:51:33 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above,
it will not stop spam from real mail servers, whether open relays or
spam house servers. You may get to the point where you do want to add
ports/packag
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:51:33 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
>Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above,
>it will not stop spam from real mail servers, whether open relays or
>spam house servers. You may get to the point where you do want to add
>ports/packages). I deal
On 7/23/07, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems normal enough. What I and some others have done in addition is
to add a whitelist that bypasses spamd altogether. Into that whitelist
goes gmail (host -ttxt gmail.com) and other large providers using pools
for outgoing mail.
Good p
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 08:05:45PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
> I'm actually curious about the expected behavior of spamd and
> how effective it is against spam on its own (i.e., without any
> additional SPAM retardants, such as SpamAssassin, etc).
Putting spamd (with greylisting) on some de
Greetings,
I'm trying to get a mail server running with spamd. I've read
the relevant man pages, but that's not to say I completely
understand everything perfectly.
I'm actually curious about the expected behavior of spamd and
how effective it is against spam on its own (i.e., without any
addit
14 matches
Mail list logo
