Noel Jones skrev den 2013-01-06 19:40:
Clearly the current, vastly improved, false positive rate is still
not acceptable for everyone.
http://www.dnswl.org/tech see more on permit_dnswl_client
it does not need to be specific dnswl.org as dnsbl/dnswl, its just an
good example on postfix confi
On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
>>
>> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
>> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, ther
On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and i
On 1/6/2013 11:29 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
>
> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
> been a nearly complete turnover of staff
>Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
Take another look. I f
Jos Chrispijn:
>
> Wietse Venema:
> > Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
> > system. Wietse
>
> What is your concern about Spamcop?
Read their blocklist policy.
I use it, thusly:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org*2
bl.spamcop.net*1 b.barracudacen
Wietse Venema:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
system. Wietse
What is your concern about Spamcop?
Happy to learn,
Jos
On 12/27/2012 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
> Le 27/12/2012 04:05, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> On 12/26/2012 6:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
> but the
Le 27/12/2012 04:05, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> On 12/26/2012 6:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>>
Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
but they are frequently used in scoring rather than
On 12/26/2012 6:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
>>> but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
>>> site listed on two of these three
On 12/25/2012 9:26 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> My postscreen config contains:
>>> postscreen_access_list = permit_mynetworks,
>>> cidr:/etc/postfix/postscreen_access.cidr
>>> postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 1
>>> postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
>>> postscreen_greet_action = enforce
>>> postscreen_b
On 12/26/2012 4:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
>> but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
>> site listed on two of these three is likely spam, a site listed on
>> only one of
On 12/24/2012 4:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Opinions differ on psbl.surriel and barracudacentral,
> but they are frequently used in scoring rather than outright. A
> site listed on two of these three is likely spam, a site listed on
> only one of them is questionable.
Nonsense. The mere fact tha
On 12/24/2012 4:34 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>>> from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
>>> [195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=,
>>> to=, proto=SMTP,
>>> helo=
>>
>> Here's your prob
Hi,
>> My postscreen config contains:
>> postscreen_access_list = permit_mynetworks,
>> cidr:/etc/postfix/postscreen_access.cidr
>> postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 1
>> postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
>> postscreen_greet_action = enforce
>> postscreen_blacklist_action = enforce
>> postscreen_dnsbl_
On 12/24/2012 2:16 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> I haven't been able to find much available on the proper use for
>>> smtpd_mumble_restrictions. It doesn't seem to be documented with
>>> postscreen or the postconf page or even my postconf output.
>>
>> smtpd_mumble_restrictions is shorthand for "use
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:34:20PM -0500, Alex wrote:
> >> Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE:
> >> reject: RCPT from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service
> >> unavailable; client [195.81.140.87] blocked using
> >> bl.spamcop.net; from=, to=,
> >> proto=SMTP, helo=
> >
Alex:
> Dec 24 04:23:11 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from [212.52.84.101]:54948: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
> [212.52.84.101] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
Wietse
Hi,
>> Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>> from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
>> [195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=,
>> to=, proto=SMTP,
>> helo=
>
> Here's your problem Alex. You're using spamcop to outright bl
On 12/24/2012 2:26 PM, Alex wrote:
> Dec 24 00:28:50 mail02 postfix/postscreen[1468]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from [195.81.140.87]:32798: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client
> [195.81.140.87] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; from=,
> to=, proto=SMTP,
> helo=
Here's your problem Alex. You're using
Hi,
>> It also looks like mail originates from IPs other than those listed as
>> an MX record for alice.it, so I'm not even sure what the range would
>> be for the postscreen permit rules.
>
> As always it would be helpful if you provided Postfix logging of these
> rejections so we can see what is
Hi,
>> I haven't been able to find much available on the proper use for
>> smtpd_mumble_restrictions. It doesn't seem to be documented with
>> postscreen or the postconf page or even my postconf output.
>
> smtpd_mumble_restrictions is shorthand for "use any of
> smtpd_{client, helo, sender, recip
On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
> rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
> ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
> due to postscreen, but now we have one ema
On 12/23/2012 9:57 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
>>> rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
>>> ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
>>> due to postscreen, but now we have
Hi,
>> I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
>> rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
>> ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
>> due to postscreen, but now we have one email address from each domain
>> that
Alex:
> Hi,
>
> I've implemented postscreen with postfix-2.9.4 on fc17 and it is
> rejecting mail from alice.it and libero.it, which are apparently two
> ISPs in Italy. We receive a large number of messages that are rejected
> due to postscreen, but now we have one email address from each domain
>
Am 24.12.2012 02:38, schrieb Alex:
> It also looks like mail originates from IPs other than those listed as
> an MX record for alice.it
MX record has nothing to do with sending IP's
it is only the incoming server
in nearly any larger setup they are different
because you have incoming servers wi
27 matches
Mail list logo
