On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone developed and/or maintains PCRE filtering for porn spam senders?
>
> (Something like https://github.com/stevejenkins/hardwarefreak.com-fqrdns.
> pcre)
>
> I guess many sender / client domains could be filtered-away if
Todd C. Olson:
> Hi
>
> makedefs in postfix v3.1.1 fails to capture readme_directory=path
>
> The following patch appears to fix that
>
> 965c965
> < for parm_name in html_directory manpage_directory
> ---
> > for parm_name in html_directory manpage_directory readme_directory
Thanks. Apparentl
On 2016-08-19 19:56, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
[no porn seen]
I understand your suggestion to query the fail2ban db directly from
postfix but I need to research more on how to implement that.
yes if that could be done, it save alot, but if not fail2ban could
possible just call a wrapper that upd
Hi
makedefs in postfix v3.1.1 fails to capture readme_directory=path
The following patch appears to fix that
965c965
< for parm_name in html_directory manpage_directory
---
> for parm_name in html_directory manpage_directory readme_directory
--
Regards,
Todd Olson
Cornell University
On 19/8/2016 5:29 μμ, Benny Pedersen wrote:
fail2ban ?
Thank you,
I am already using fail2ban directly with the following rules:
/etc/fail2ban/filter.d/:
failregex = reject: RCPT from (.*)\[\]: 554
reject: RCPT from (.*)\[\]: 450
reject: RCPT from (.*)\[
> > Possible avenues: allow transport::port and :port,
> A domain-less next-hop destination (:port) would break the scheduler,
> which schedules deliveries by the next-hop destination. Note that
> the scheduler does not know about host:port syntax, nor does it
> know which delivery agents support
On 2016-08-19 15:30, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Any additional suggestions?
fail2ban ?
(permenent blocking is easy, hint, fail2ban uses sqlite db, its pretty
simple to query it from postfix sqlite map)
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> So, is this policy server listening on port 1234 or port ?
> I'll assume this is just inconsistent (and pointless) obfuscation...
Just a pointless obfuscation. Sorry about this.
> As Wietse noted more tersely, the only way to handle c
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Richard James Salts
> wrote:
>
> It sounds like similar behaviour to what postfix is logging, so at least you
> have a way to replicate it now. Try checking netstat -antp | grep : and
> see what state all the tcp sockets are in. If you're seeing a lot in SY
Wietse Venema:
> Jason Lancaster:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking for a way to map senders with different sending reputation
> > to specific destination ports (that will eventually be mapped to
> > different sending IPs by the firewall) without hardcoding the nexthop.
> >
> > sender_dependent_defa
Hello,
Has anyone developed and/or maintains PCRE filtering for porn spam senders?
(Something like
https://github.com/stevejenkins/hardwarefreak.com-fqrdns.pcre)
I guess many sender / client domains could be filtered-away if they
include keywords like "kiss", "girl", "date", "adult", "cute",
On 2016-08-17 17:34, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
I got a problem with my own Postfix policy server (written in Python).
Postfix usually works fine with it, but sometimes it raised error like
this:
Aug 17 08:32:52 mail1 postfix/smtpd[24298]: warning: problem talking
to server 127.0.0.1:1234: Connection
12 matches
Mail list logo
