> Anybody on this list run whois on spams?
Yes, all the time, but only to get CIDR ranges, not for Abuse addresses.
And this ... is *NOT* the list to talk anti-spam techniques.
> Would like to report sources and spammed domains, but...
SpamCop.
Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
" So this is how Liberty die
> Anybody on this list run whois on spams?
Yes, all the time, but only to get CIDR ranges, not for Abuse addresses.
And this ... is *NOT* the list to talk anti-spam techniques.
> Would like to report sources and spammed domains, but...
SpamCop.
Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
" So this is how Liberty die
Anybody on this list run whois on spams?
I’ve been struggling w/spam lately, some malware somewhere nabbed emails
addy's, now I’m getting spammed a lot.
Would like to report sources and spammed domains, but… I have fears of the
malevolent…
Wondering if you guys have any suggestions.
-Joe
Am 05.11.2014 17:31, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> postfix-us...@arcsin.de:
Since the tcp_table is consulted with a full address, it can produce wrong
answers even if it is placed at the last position of
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > postfix-us...@arcsin.de:
> > > Since the tcp_table is consulted with a full address, it can produce wrong
> > > answers even if it is placed at the last position of transport_maps.
> >
> > I have a revolutiona
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:30:06PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > recorded it appears that our customer's system is sending a [RST, ACK]
> > packet directly after sending "TLSv1 Application Data", which very
> > probably is its EHLO.
>
> You may have read the wrong direction for the Applicatio
Ok, thanks.
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Correction
[actual quote from qmail non-delivery notification, address anonymized]
> :
> Remote host said:
> 550 5.7.1 Spam not accepted here.
> [BODY]
[actual quote from qmail non-delivery notification, address anonymized]
> :
> Remote host said:
> 550 5.7.1 Spam not accepted here.
> [BODY]
>
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
> Received: from [etc...]
[actual Postfix configuration details]
> header_checks:
> /Subject: VvVvV/
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> postfix-us...@arcsin.de:
> > Since the tcp_table is consulted with a full address, it can produce wrong
> > answers even if it is placed at the last position of transport_maps.
>
> I have a revolutionary suggestion: DO NOT REPLY WIT
header_checks:
/Subject: VvVvV/ REJECT Spam not accepted here.
body_checks:/VvVvV/ REJECT Spam not accepted here.
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Correction
J.:
> This is the message failur
postfix-us...@arcsin.de:
> Since the tcp_table is consulted with a full address, it can produce wrong
> answers even if it is placed at the last position of transport_maps.
I have a revolutionary suggestion: DO NOT REPLY WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION.
Wietse
Wietse Venema:
> Damian Lukowski:
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there a reason that tcp_table has the DICT_FLAG_PATTERN flag
>> instead of DICT_FLAG_FIXED? One could create more flexible transport
>> map chains if tcp_table was also queried for pure domains.
> Like pcre, regexp, and socketmap, tcp_table is quer
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:27:49PM +0100, Tobias Reckhard wrote:
> Nov 5 12:36:45 pxmail1 postfix/smtp[8378]:
> Trusted TLS connection established to
> mail01.i-sec.tuv.com[193.24.224.9]:25:
> TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)
> Nov 5 12:36:45 pxmail1 postfix/smtp[8378]:
On 11/4/2014 6:38 PM, J. wrote:
>
> No, the "[BODY]" line is sent to the connecting server with the
> error that I write. I didn't write it. Here's a sample rejected
> message when I sent a test message from my web-mail to my postfix
> server:
>
> Remote host said:
> 550 Spam not accepted.
> [BOD
J.:
> This is the message failure notice I received from my web-mail
> related to the log file entry (the second one I believe) The only
> thing I'm changing is the email address. I don't include what
> follows the received from because that's just the web mail co's
> ip addresses etc. I'm not sure
I do not put HTML in my config. Postfix writes a snip of each message in the
log when it rejects a message that matches a body_check rule (and often emails
have HTML in their body as I'm sure you know). Here's a test rule that I
created so I could send a message that would be rejected and allow
This is the message failure notice I received from my web-mail related to the
log file entry (the second one I believe) The only thing I'm changing is the
email address. I don't include what follows the received from because that's
just the web mail co's ip addresses etc. I'm not sure what you'r
Damian Lukowski:
> Hi,
>
> is there a reason that tcp_table has the DICT_FLAG_PATTERN flag
> instead of DICT_FLAG_FIXED? One could create more flexible transport
> map chains if tcp_table was also queried for pure domains.
Like pcre, regexp, and socketmap, tcp_table is queried only with
the full
Hi,
is there a reason that tcp_table has the DICT_FLAG_PATTERN flag instead of
DICT_FLAG_FIXED?
One could create more flexible transport map chains if tcp_table was also
queried for pure domains.
Regards
Damian
Tobi:
>
> > maybe connection lost or something similar
> > not all loglines contain the queue-id
> Hi
>
> thanks for your input. After greping for the ip I could see 'timeout
> after data'
> But I still wonder why there is a message-id logged? Is the message-id
> generated before the complete tra
Hello
I'm experiencing the above problem on a customer's system while trying
to send mail to the domain i-sec.tuv.com -- I've replaced the HELO/EHLO
of our customer with mail.customer. The logs say:
Nov 5 12:36:45 pxmail1 postfix/smtp[8378]: <
mail01.i-sec.tuv.com[193.24.224.9]:25: 220 mail01.i-
J.:
> I don't think my assumption is completely unwarranted. I created a
> header_checks rule and then sent a message from outside our system and this
> shows up in the log:
>
> Nov 4 12:09:24 kest postfix/cleanup[13287]: 375FR2F2491F: reject: header
> Subject: VvVvV test message...[etc]
>
>
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Tobi wrote:
Hi,
> Nov 5 05:26:44 213.196.149.XX postfix/smtpd[30553]: B93D2180036:
> client=unknown[188.119.245.XX], sasl_method=LOGIN,
> sasl_username=our_u...@example.com
> Nov 5 05:26:46 213.196.149.XX postfix/cleanup[30375]: B93D2180036:
> message-id=<0
Am 05.11.2014 um 11:40 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 05.11.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Tobi:
>> I got a imho weird problem with understanding the logs. We have an
>> client that authenticates correctly which generates an id from postfix.
>> If I grep this id through the logs I can see a logline with a
Am 05.11.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Tobi:
I got a imho weird problem with understanding the logs. We have an
client that authenticates correctly which generates an id from postfix.
If I grep this id through the logs I can see a logline with a
message-id. But why there is no recipient?
Nov 5 05:26:4
Hi list
I got a imho weird problem with understanding the logs. We have an
client that authenticates correctly which generates an id from postfix.
If I grep this id through the logs I can see a logline with a
message-id. But why there is no recipient?
<<
Nov 5 05:26:44 213.196.149.XX postfix/smt
Am 05.11.2014 um 06:45 schrieb J.:
I don't think my assumption is completely unwarranted. I created a
header_checks rule and then sent a message from outside our system and
this shows up in the log:
Nov 4 12:09:24 kest postfix/cleanup[13287]: 375FR2F2491F: reject:
header Subject: VvVvV test me
Am 05.11.2014 um 03:07 schrieb J.:
Maybe I don't know the name of notification where this message comes
from, but it is certainly postfix. I admin the "remote host" that "said"
that. I entered the text "Spam not accepted" in my body_checks file, and
the next line I don't know how to control. I w
Am 05.11.2014 um 03:07 schrieb J.:
Maybe I don't know the name of notification where this message comes
from, but it is certainly postfix. I admin the "remote host" that "said"
that. I entered the text "Spam not accepted" in my body_checks file, and
the next line I don't know how to control. I w
29 matches
Mail list logo
