90% of global e-mail is SPAM.
91% of targeted attacks start with e-mail.
What is Postfix's share of SPAM?
A recent survey of 2.8M SMTP servers shows the following.
- 53% of Postfix servers are black-listed (DNSBL)
http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/mta/Postfix
The OP includes information that you clearly ignored.
If you step out of Postfix for a moment, and read the OP again, then you
cannot fail to see a Perl Compatible Regular Expression that works
exactly as intended on the e-mail body when saved as a file. From the
same standpoint, you cannot fa
Re: body_checks(5)
> The input string for body_checks is a single message body line.
> so "\A" == "^" and "\z" == "$".
Both /m and /A are compliant with postfix's pcre_table(5). Therefore,
\A and \z *must not* fall back to ^ and $ when using /Am.
Postfix's adaptation of pcre leads to false posi
Let test.eml be a complete e-mail, and
let test-body.eml be the body of test.eml only.
The following matches any e-mail body with a single link
surrounded by spaces and newlines:
perl -n0e '/\A\s*]+\s*\z/mi and print' test-body.eml
Therefore, we add the following to postfix's body_checks:
/\A
This is the reply to a person who wanted to stay anonymous.
I am posting the reply here, with his name bleached,
because it may help similar readers.
On 12/14/15 4:42 PM, R.H. (privat) wrote:
>http://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=144978027304340&w=2
>> Run a "proper" e-mail server, that is,
On 12/10/15 5:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:10:52PM +0100, sb wrote:
We must find a way to reject telnet-like cloud-based e-mails.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You've convinced yourself
that you thoroughly understand more than you do, and have b
I look forward to read the stats from https://dane.sys4.de/
On 12/10/15 3:29 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
Hello,
does anyone here have statistics about DANE enabled mail servers? And
maybe also a timeline showing an increase (hopefully)? I'm running
DANE for some time now and I don't ever get a
e-mail
from that pool is good enoughto cause damages while hiding its identity
from the forensics.
We must find a way to reject telnet-like cloud-based e-mails.
SB
On 12/7/15 7:19 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
sb:
Our point of view is plain: are we dealing with "proper" e-mail servers?
Good question.
Our emphasis, therefore, is on the DNS, to identify the sender and
its MX RR, because it is the de-facto standard to say "
Everybody,
Thank you for your clarifications on postfix terms, I will treasure it,
but let us focus on the problem please.
Legal procedures allow us to take down identified e-mail servers. It is
not possible,
however, to proceed against a botnet of static and dynamic addresses
that send e-mail
On 12/5/15 11:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>This is the spamming host:
>>
>> >unbound-host -rvD 78-134-2-123.v4.ngi.it
>>78-134-2-123.v4.ngi.it has address 78.134.2.123 (insecure)
>>78-134-2-123.v4.ngi.it has no IPv6 address (insecure)
>>78-134-2-123.v4.ngi.it has no mail handler record (insecure)
On 12/4/15 9:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Is this even the IP the sender domain pointed to?
That isn't clear in your posting.
Answered 4h earlier, althoughthe particular case of 78-134-2-123.v4.ngi.it was just a conversation
starter.
On 12/4/15 6:28 PM, sb wrote:
This is the spamming
On 12/4/15 7:08 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> The sender domain must have either an MX or an A record.
> You can reply to a domain with only an A record.
If I send mail to the above address, there is no server that can receive it:
> telnet 78.134.2.123 25
Trying 78.134.2.123...
No response given. Th
Hello,
I received (yet another) SPAM/UCE from an address without MX record.
Although it is not mandatory for a sender to have an MX record,
this RFC loophole is exploited by spammers. Further, I do not want to
receive mail from someone I cannot reply to.
Before writing a milter, I would need to
14 matches
Mail list logo
