Re: Dead Destination configuration

On 2011-12-06 10:02, DN Singh wrote: Can you please name the topic, so I can search about it? It would be of great help. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jeroen Geilman > wrote: On 2011-12-05 15:36, DN Singh wrote: Yes, I tried to figure it out that way,

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Am 06.12.2011 10:02, schrieb DN Singh: > Can you please name the topic, so I can search about it? It would be of > great help. look here for basic ideas http://configs.blogspot.com/2010/05/postfix-fallback-relay.html study http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_fallback_relay > > On Mon,

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Can you please name the topic, so I can search about it? It would be of great help. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 2011-12-05 15:36, DN Singh wrote: > >> Yes, I tried to figure it out that way, but the numbers aren't constant. >> > > Have you considered that this is

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

From: Lima Union >To: >Cc: Postfix users >Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 8:02 AM >Subject: Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration) > > > >I'm having the same problem here, a lot of spam comming from YAHOO mail system. >I didn't kn

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

From: Steve > To: postfix-users@postfix.org >Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 4:59 AM >Subject: Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration) > > >> >I wish there was a chart for spam sent FROM yahoo. 99% of our spam comes >> from yahoo (that gets t

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On 2011-12-05 15:36, DN Singh wrote: Yes, I tried to figure it out that way, but the numbers aren't constant. Have you considered that this is because your submission is not 100% flat ? If you submit or retry in bursts (and when they block you for a fixed period of time after denying access, y

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Yes, I tried to figure it out that way, but the numbers aren't constant. Which is I was experimenting on the delays, and then ended up on this topic... On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > DN Singh: > > The problem is that I am unable to find any hard limit of acceptance of > >

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Steve Fatula wrote: > From: Wietse Venema > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:42 AM > Subject: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration) > > To get some idea of Yahoo spam load (and keyword

Re: Dead Destination configuration

DN Singh: > The problem is that I am unable to find any hard limit of acceptance of > mails to these destinations. I have even tried creating slow transports for > them, but they still seem to drop connections after DATA command or RCPT > command. > > "lost connection with mx.rediffmail.rediff.aka

Re: Dead Destination configuration

The problem is that I am unable to find any hard limit of acceptance of mails to these destinations. I have even tried creating slow transports for them, but they still seem to drop connections after DATA command or RCPT command. "lost connection with mx.rediffmail.rediff.akadns.net[119.252.147.10

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Am 05.12.2011 12:12, schrieb DN Singh: > SPF, DKIM, FBL everything being followed, but still no more than 3-4k > delivery to hotmail/rediff. Any ideas group?? Can these destinations be > classified as dead, when they start deferring? sorry ,they arent "dead" at all, even if they dont take mail fr

Re: Dead Destination configuration

SPF, DKIM, FBL everything being followed, but still no more than 3-4k delivery to hotmail/rediff. Any ideas group?? Can these destinations be classified as dead, when they start deferring? On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Friday 02 December 2011 08:23:53 Mark Goodge wrote:

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

[not entirely OT, but leaving the subject unchanged] On Sunday 04 December 2011 04:59:45 Steve wrote: > > Von: Steve Fatula > > >I wish there was a chart for spam sent FROM yahoo. 99% of > > >our spam comes from yahoo (that gets through postscreen). > > On my end it is hotmail. Anyway postsc

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

Original-Nachricht > Datum: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:15:34 -0800 (PST) > Von: Steve Fatula > An: Postfix users > Betreff: Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration) > From: Wietse Venema > >To: postfix-users@postfix.org > >Sent: Frida

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On Friday 02 December 2011 08:23:53 Mark Goodge wrote: > To be more specific, Yahoo's code TS01 doesn't mean "You are > sending us too much email and we want you to slow down". It means > "We think you might be a spammer, so we are setting you a simple > test of whether you can follow instructions"

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Am 03.12.2011 16:43, schrieb DN Singh: > I guess Mark does have some experience with TS01 defers of Yahoo. Can > anyone confirm for upto how long does Yahoo accept the mails, after we > stop it for 4 hours. I mean is it worth stopping delivery for "4 hours", > and gathering those mails? > If so,

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Also, Yahoo atleast wants us to follow some policy, Rediff/Hotmail won't let us know what to do when sending mails... They just like to defer mails. For maximum 5k mails daily to each destination, I see 40-50k deferred attempts in the logs. Precious time and connections are lost in such attempts. I

Re: Dead Destination configuration

I guess Mark does have some experience with TS01 defers of Yahoo. Can anyone confirm for upto how long does Yahoo accept the mails, after we stop it for 4 hours. I mean is it worth stopping delivery for "4 hours", and gathering those mails? If so, I could on the path Wietse is suggesting, of taili

Re: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

From: Wietse Venema >To: postfix-users@postfix.org >Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:42 AM >Subject: OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration) > >To get some idea of Yahoo spam load (and keyword trends) see >http://visualize.yahoo.com/ and click the green but

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Mark Goodge: > > I've seen no evidence that this interpretation is correct. On what > > basis do you assert that this is Yahoo's policy? > > Experience, mostly. I've found that ceasing retry attempts for four > hours, then restarting, typically results in the queue clearing as fast > as you can

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On 02/12/2011 14:35, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:23:53PM +, Mark Goodge wrote: That makes no sense at all, surely nothing more productive will happen when the spiggot is turned on 4 hours later with even more mail queued. The point is that "following instructions" is

OT: Yahoo spam load (was: Dead Destination configuration)

To get some idea of Yahoo spam load (and keyword trends) see http://visualize.yahoo.com/ and click the green buttons. Wietse

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:23:53PM +, Mark Goodge wrote: > >That makes no sense at all, surely nothing more productive will happen > >when the spiggot is turned on 4 hours later with even more mail queued. > > The point is that "following instructions" is a reasonable proxy for > "being a leg

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On 02/12/2011 14:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:24:29AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: There is no scenario in which a site that accepts your mail (i.e. has not classified you as a spammer, correctly or not) will offer better service if all your mail delayed by a few hours,

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:24:29AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > There is no scenario in which a site that accepts your mail (i.e. > > has not classified you as a spammer, correctly or not) will offer > > better service if all your mail delayed by a few hours, that just > > time-warps the proble

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Viktor Dukhovni: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:02AM +0530, DN Singh wrote: > > > Yes, I am trying some workarounds, like rate delays, to address unusual > > traffic, and also joined their FBL for complainants. But, am still facing > > problems with some MTAs. > > Also, this only for Yahoo, there

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Okay. This means I was going in the wrong direction itself. Thank you guys, for making this clear. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:02AM +0530, DN Singh wrote: > > > Yes, I am trying some workarounds, like rate delays, to address unusual > >

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:02AM +0530, DN Singh wrote: > Yes, I am trying some workarounds, like rate delays, to address unusual > traffic, and also joined their FBL for complainants. But, am still facing > problems with some MTAs. > Also, this only for Yahoo, there are others like hotmail, red

Re: Dead Destination configuration

DN Singh: > I will get more clear with an example: > > yahoo.com has different rejection codes, common of which is TS01. They say, > after TS01, you aren't supposed to attempt delivery for 4 hours. But, the Wietse: > According to "Yahoo! Postmaster Help Topics", TS01 means: > > * We are seeing unu

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Yes, I am trying some workarounds, like rate delays, to address unusual traffic, and also joined their FBL for complainants. But, am still facing problems with some MTAs. Also, this only for Yahoo, there are others like hotmail, rediffmail, aol, etc. Rediff being worst... The only thing that I wan

Re: Dead Destination configuration

DN Singh: > I will get more clear with an example: > > yahoo.com has different rejection codes, common of which is TS01. They say, > after TS01, you aren't supposed to attempt delivery for 4 hours. But, the According to "Yahoo! Postmaster Help Topics", TS01 means: * We are seeing unusual traffic

Re: Dead Destination configuration

I will get more clear with an example: yahoo.com has different rejection codes, common of which is TS01. They say, after TS01, you aren't supposed to attempt delivery for 4 hours. But, the problem with postfix is that, it will even after many mails getting deferred, it does not mark the destinatio

Re: Dead Destination configuration

DN Singh: > Yes Jeroen, > > That is the case. I am suffering backlog of mails to one domain, due to its > deferral policy. This is why I want to handle it manually. Could you help > in the matter? If you have backlogs for ONE domain, then Postfix built-in mechanisms are already solving the proble

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Yes Jeroen, That is the case. I am suffering backlog of mails to one domain, due to its deferral policy. This is why I want to handle it manually. Could you help in the matter? On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 2011-12-01 08:35, DN Singh wrote: > >> Hello Group, >> >> I

Re: Dead Destination configuration

On 2011-12-01 08:35, DN Singh wrote: Hello Group, I am trying some extra configuration for postfix where it would mark some destinations as undeliverable. I have found that there are some destinations, start deferring the mails (may be greylisting) for a particular period of time (times rangi

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Thanks for the suggestion Robert, but how do I find the time for which Postfix will not attempt a delivery after reaching the fail limit? Instead of outsourcing the task to script, and increasing a dependency, it would be better to keep it with Postfix itself, if possible. If there aren't any opti

Re: Dead Destination configuration

Am 01.12.2011 08:35, schrieb DN Singh: > Hello Group, > > I am trying some extra configuration for postfix where it would mark > some destinations as undeliverable. I have found that there are some > destinations, start deferring the mails (may be greylisting) for a > particular period of time (ti

Dead Destination configuration

Hello Group, I am trying some extra configuration for postfix where it would mark some destinations as undeliverable. I have found that there are some destinations, start deferring the mails (may be greylisting) for a particular period of time (times ranging from 1min to 4hrs), and after the time