On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
I really don't understand why people keep telling that spam is a problem?
because there are peopole out their whose time costs money?
This prt of the problem I suspect is marginal. It's not the cost, it's
wh
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Frank Bonnet wrote:
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day.
It is not a criticism it is a fact that jump
to every sysadmin's face.
Does anyone has knowing of the future of SMTP ?
Is th
Le 13/03/2011 17:57, Alfonso Alejandro Reyes Jimenez a écrit :
> Hi everyone.
>
> I'm sending this email because I'm looking for a reference regarding smtp
> attacks, this is because I'm working to create some smtp signatures for the
> snort solution.
>
> It's not directly with snort, I'm willi
Le 13/03/2011 16:52, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de a écrit :
> Zitat von Frank Bonnet :
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
>>
>> Postfix is really a great piece of software
>> and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
>>
>> But to fight spam and all other malicious
>> problem
Le 13/03/2011 16:56, Erwan David a écrit :
> Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the
>>> inbound.
>>>
>>> but not only with postfix
>>>
>> No. Not only with postfix alone. But most
n
>> time.
>>
>> This error was rare enough that it should not affect real email.
>>
>> Use "postfix reload" after "make upgrade" on a running Postfix
>> system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
>> and dnsblog(
affect real email.
>
> Use "postfix reload" after "make upgrade" on a running Postfix
> system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
> and dnsblog(8) has changed.
Also fixed with postfix-2.9-20110313.
Wietse
On 2011-03-13 07:52:11 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If you use virtual_mailbox_limit with strictly maildir mailboxes, you
> may as well set message_size_limit=0 and leave it alone, so you only
> have one setting to keep track of.
Is 0 accepted for this option? http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.ht
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/13/2011 3:08 PM:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 3/13/2011 1:47 PM:
>> Larry Vaden:
>>> Weitse,
>>
>> That is not my name.
>
> Unfortunately in the US we all had the following English spelling rule
> hard wired into our synapses somewhere between the 1st and 4th grade:
>
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/13/2011 1:47 PM:
> Larry Vaden:
>> Weitse,
>
> That is not my name.
Unfortunately in the US we all had the following English spelling rule
hard wired into our synapses somewhere between the 1st and 4th grade:
"I before E except after C"
Some of us are able to overco
uot; after "make upgrade" on a running Postfix
system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
and dnsblog(8) has changed.
Wietse
20110313
Bugfix (introduced Postfix 2.8): number the postscreen DNSBL
requests, so that delayed results fo
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:35:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Larry Vaden:
> > Hello postfix-users,
> >
> > For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
> > log entries are summarized as:
> >
> >1744 DNSBL rank 2
> > 12458 DNSBL rank 3
> >5113 DNSBL rank 4
> >
Wietse:
> Postscreen does HELO processing after it has completed the DBSNL
> and pregreet tests.
Larry Vaden:
> Request withdrawn, but may I ask why so we can close this thread?
>
> This is news to me (see proviso above, I probably read it and just
> don't remember it). Is the HELO test enabled
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Larry Vaden:
>> Weitse,
>
> That is not my name.
Dr. Venema, my most sincere apologies.
OMG, my son is correct, 9 stents and a pacemaker later, I should avoid
public discourse.
>> Please let me try to advance the request to make certain ot
Larry Vaden:
> Weitse,
That is not my name.
> Please let me try to advance the request to make certain other tests
> available as an option in postscreen; namely, note the helo above;
> unless I have watched too much Dennis Miller and am wrong about this,
> we could have rejected said based on t
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Ralf Hildebrandt:
>>> $ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
>>> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
>>> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
>>>
Larry Vaden:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >> Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
> >> the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
> >
> > Uncorrected multi-bit memory error?
>
> The boxen are Compaq DL380s with ECC; I'll leave it to you to di
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
>> $ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
>> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
>> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
>>
>> 2*2 = 7?
>
> Surely you have enough logs of your own that
* Wietse Venema :
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > $ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
> > 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
> > 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
> >
> > 2*2 = 7?
>
> Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
> that this doe
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>> Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
>> the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
>
> Uncorrected multi-bit memory error?
The boxen are Compaq DL380s with ECC; I'll leave it to you to discern
their capabilities as I
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
>
>> I would like to thank the author of postscreen --- who was that?
>
> Wietse?
As always, THANKS Weitse!
--
Larry Vaden, CoFounder
Internet Texoma, Inc.
Serving Rural Texomaland Since 1995
We Care About Your Connection!
* Wietse Venema :
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > $ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
> > 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
> > 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
> >
> > 2*2 = 7?
>
> Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
> that this doe
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:56:31 +0100
> Von: Erwan David
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
> Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
> > > > And today it is not big deal
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> $ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
> 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
>
> 2*2 = 7?
Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
that this does not happen.
Wietse
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> This is not a problem of SMTP but from the idea to design a system
> where everyone is able to send a message to some other participant if
> the "address" is known. So you don't have to reinvent SMTP but to
> ditch the idea of free electronic communication.
+1.
Now, l
* Larry Vaden :
> >> Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
> >> the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
> >
> > Please find the corresponding log line, so we can check this.
>
> This is the one on which this query was filed:
>
> [root@mx4 ~]# zcat /var/log/maillog.1.gz | gre
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
Yes it is and it gets better every release.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's get
Larry Vaden:
> Hello postfix-users,
>
> For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
> log entries are summarized as:
>
>1744 DNSBL rank 2
> 12458 DNSBL rank 3
>5113 DNSBL rank 4
>1099 DNSBL rank 5
> 1 DNSBL rank 7
>
> Q1: Given the postscreen invocatio
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Larry Vaden :
>> Hello postfix-users,
>>
>> For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
>> log entries are summarized as:
>
> By which tool?
Hi Ralf,
Sorry about the subject line; I hit the send key before I s
Hi everyone.
I'm sending this email because I'm looking for a reference regarding smtp
attacks, this is because I'm working to create some smtp signatures for the
snort solution.
It's not directly with snort, I'm willing to contribute with the bleeding snort
proyect.
I can't find any informat
What's causing spam?
Reasons for spam:
- people want traffic on their sites (because they hope to make more
business) - or they want to distribute malware.
Whom to spam:
- spammers try to find contact identifiers to send messages to.
They do this by:
- random combinations of words
- harv
* Larry Vaden :
> Hello postfix-users,
>
> For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
> log entries are summarized as:
By which tool?
>1744 DNSBL rank 2
> 12458 DNSBL rank 3
>5113 DNSBL rank 4
>1099 DNSBL rank 5
> 1 DNSBL rank 7
>
> Q1: Given the po
Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
>
> >
> >
> > Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
> > > And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the
> > inbound.
> >
> > but not only with postfix
> >
> No. Not only with postfix alone. But most of us are not only using postfix in
> the
Zitat von Frank Bonnet :
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:58:50 +0100
> Von: Lorens Kockum
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:24PM +0100, Steve wrote:
> > The spamming problem is not something that you can fix by
> > replac
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:24PM +0100, Steve wrote:
> The spamming problem is not something that you can fix by
> replacing SMTP with something new.
An appropriate illustration is the initiative taken recently by
Germany's government to create a secure e-mail environment. It
does not replace SM
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/13/2011 4:24 AM:
> On 2011-03-12 10:58:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> No, it's not a bug. As you know maildir storage format stores one email
>> _per file_. virtual_mailbox_limit is a _per file_ size restriction.
>> With maildir storage it will prevent individual
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:42:55 +0100
> Von: Reindl Harald
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
>
>
> Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
> > And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the
> inbound.
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
> And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the inbound.
but not only with postfix and without taking money in the hand
do not tell us only with strict smtp you get 99% spam away
> I really don't understand why people keep telling that
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:57:20 +0100
> Von: Frank Bonnet
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: The future of SMTP ?
> Hello
>
> Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
>
> Postfix is really a great piece of software
> and we all thanks to Wiese for
Le 13/03/2011 09:57, Frank Bonnet a écrit :
> Hello
>
> Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
>
> Postfix is really a great piece of software
> and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
>
> But to fight spam and all other malicious
> problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
How about one more thoughtful post at most and then a threadkill.
Join the spammers.dontlike.us list - its a good place to bring this sort of
general question up.
Join the ongoing marf standards list - it will affect us all!
Finally - there is no magic
On 2011-03-12 10:58:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> No, it's not a bug. As you know maildir storage format stores one email
> _per file_. virtual_mailbox_limit is a _per file_ size restriction.
> With maildir storage it will prevent individual emails (individual
> files) greater than (default: 5
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to con
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day.
It is not a criticism it i
45 matches
Mail list logo
