Am 20.09.2013 21:42, schrieb azurIt:
>> Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
>>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject
>>> single legitimate e-mail message.
>>
>> ok ,so why cry about you
On Sep 20, 2013, at 22:03, azurIt wrote:
>> You are creating this problem yourself. No spam filtering is 100%
>> without false positives, but properly configured before-queue defenses
>> generally cut out ~90% of the garbage you get from bots and zombies. Or
>> more, depending on how tight of
Hello Azur,
On 9/20/2013 12:45 PM, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> Has it occurred to you that the reason lots of your users enable
> forwarding to Gmail may be the fact that you accept everything? And
> that they are essentially using Gmail as the spam filter they need
> because of this?
Joni makes
>Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
>> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
>> that
>> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard spam
>> filter techniques?
>> Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, ... No one is doing it, most of th
On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:21, azurIt wrote:
>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
>>>
>>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
not sending). Any tips how can i d
azurIt:
> I was just friendly ASKING, if Postfix is able to _not_ forward a
> message based on it's headers.
Assumung that these headers are added by a spam filter, this would
require a Milter plugin that examines messages after your spam
filter, and that dynamically adds a forwarding address to t
On 2013-09-20 1:31 PM, azurIt wrote:
I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks
Then don't allow blanket forwarders, or just accept it when someone
blocks you for good cause because of your silly decisions.
- there are and always be false positives.
For CONTENT filter base
Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
> that
> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard spam
> filter techniques?
> Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, ... No one is doing it, most of them hav
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>azurIt:
>> I was just friendly ASKING, if Postfix is able to _not_ forward a
>> message based on it's headers.
>
>Assumung that these headers are added by a spam filter, this would
>require a Milter plugin that examines messages after your spam
>filter, and that dyn
Am 20.09.2013 22:10, schrieb azurIt:
>> Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
>>> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
>>> that
>>> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard
>>> spam filter techniques?
>>> Google, Yahoo, Micros
/dev/rob0:
> No, I have not noticed that. Neither have you! You have noticed, at
> the top of this thread, that gmail is rejecting you!
The way I read his request is that he wants to forward non-spam
only, and is looking for a Postfix solution that supports this.
The best proposal I can come up
On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
not sending). Any tips how can i disable forwarding in c
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:03:32PM +0200, azurIt wrote:
> >>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users
> enabled forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is
> also forwarded. Today gmail block us because of spam (whic
>azurIt wrote:
>
>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
>> legitimate e-mail message.
>
>Spam volume these days is such that accepting, processing, and storing
>**all** mail is be
>Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
>> legitimate e-mail message.
>
>ok ,so why cry about your own decisions ?
Where exacly i was 'cryin
Am 20.09.2013 18:12, schrieb azurIt:
> Blocking emails based on spam filters are always wrong
says who?
> Spam recognition will NEVER be 100%
nothing will 100%, nowehere
> there are always false positives
yes, and there are some 100 times more spam
> We are accepting all emails and filter th
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
>> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just fo
>On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
>> Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
>> not sending). Any tips how can i disable forw
On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:12, azurIt wrote:
>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
>>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
>>> Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
>On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:21, azurIt wrote:
>
>>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>>>
Hi,
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Am 20.09.2013 18:12, schrieb azurIt:
> Blocking emails based on spam filters are always wrong. Spam recognition will
> NEVER be 100%, there are always false positives. We are accepting all emails
> and filter them after. I just need to tell Postfix to NOT forward particular
> messages and only d
azurIt wrote:
> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
> legitimate e-mail message.
Spam volume these days is such that accepting, processing, and storing
**all** mail is becoming m
Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
> legitimate e-mail message.
ok ,so why cry about your own decisions ?
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schette
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding, not
> sending). Any tips how
Am 20.09.2013 16:42, schrieb azurIt:
> Hi,
>
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding, not sending).
> Any tips how can i dis
Hi,
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today gmail
block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding, not sending). Any tips
how can i disable forwarding in case of a spam (for example, w
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:39:42PM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> > There is no such need, the draft RFC allows server operators to use
> > *either* name (whichever they prefer), and requires clients to support
> > both. There is NO requirement for server operators to publish both.
>
> To be ho
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:27:57AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Without close cooperation from the remote site, fingerprint
> verification just isn't practical. For an arbitrary third-party
> site, you'll probably need to stick to "encrypt" or maybe in some
> cases "verify".
> http://www.postfix.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/20/2013 6:36 AM, Luigi Rosa wrote:
> Hi, I have a TLS enabled Postfix with a PKI certificate.
>
> The configuration of SMTP TLS is:
>
> smtp_tls_security_level = may smtp_tls_note_starttls_offer =
> yes smtp_tls_fingerprint_digest = sha1 smtp_tl
* Viktor Dukhovni :
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> > - make sure the submission server at mail.example.com has certificates
> > for mail.example.com as well as example.com, with example.com being
> > the certificate that's displayed when the client does't s
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> I see. So, for joe.u...@example.com the whole setup would probably be
> something along:
>
> - publish SRV record for _submission._tcp SRV 0 1 587 mail.example.com
Yes. Though it will be some time before most MUAs are zeroconf i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a TLS enabled Postfix with a PKI certificate.
The configuration of SMTP TLS is:
smtp_tls_security_level = may
smtp_tls_note_starttls_offer = yes
smtp_tls_fingerprint_digest = sha1
smtp_tls_policy_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/tls_policy
and in
* Viktor Dukhovni :
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:44:27AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> > * Viktor Dukhovni :
> > > You should be looking at the SMTP draft, not the OPS draft. [...]
> > Would that be draft-ietf-dane-smtp-01? Because this one, too,
> > explicitely doesn't cover mail submission.
> N
34 matches
Mail list logo
