On 20 Dec 2018, at 11:08, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Viruses can come from any source.
OK, But I am pretty sure I’ve never seen a virus from mail chimp.
I don’t have a large enough load to worry about not scanning, but if I did the
first thing I would stop scanning is gmail incoming and the larg
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:04 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that doing an A/V scan on mail from Mailchimp and/or
> cosntantcontact is a waste of time?
>
> They are not sending viruses. Hell, they are not even sending spam.
Viruses can come from any source. And message origin auth
On 18 Dec 2018, at 16:58, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The solution is perhaps in part to throw some more CPU at the
> problem, but alternatively, assuming that mailchimp et. al.
> are not abusing reasonable concurrency limits, you can reduce
> the impedance mismatch by increasing the input latency, b
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Alex wrote:
>
> The problem is that this is a domain with thousands of recipients, and
> mailchimp and others send mass newsletters to thousands of those
> recipients at once to our relyhosts, which first scan the emails for
> spam/viruses and only then forward on.
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:18 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:47:02AM -0500, Alex wrote:
>
> > The original reason I had set it in the first place was to try and control
> > the amount of email the bulk senders like constantcontact, mailchimp, etc,
> > could send at o
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:47:02AM -0500, Alex wrote:
> The original reason I had set it in the first place was to try and control
> the amount of email the bulk senders like constantcontact, mailchimp, etc,
> could send at once, filling our queues with thousands of messages at once.
> This does n
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:42 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Allen Coates
> > wrote:
> >
> > I have a hunch that this is an excess count.
>
> It is not.
The issue was that I had one mail host with the parameter set to 5
while the one I checked did not have it set
> On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Allen Coates wrote:
>
> I have a hunch that this is an excess count.
It is not.
--
Viktor.
On 14/12/2018 06:13, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 13, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Alex wrote:
>>
>> We had a Mimecast user report today that their mail was being rejected
>> with a 4.7.0 "too many connections" error. This is a "soft" error, in
>> that the mail client will later attempt to resen
> On Dec 13, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Alex wrote:
>
> We had a Mimecast user report today that their mail was being rejected
> with a 4.7.0 "too many connections" error. This is a "soft" error, in
> that the mail client will later attempt to resend, correct?
Should be.
> Isn't the default of 50 con
Hi,
We had a Mimecast user report today that their mail was being rejected
with a 4.7.0 "too many connections" error. This is a "soft" error, in
that the mail client will later attempt to resend, correct?
Isn't the default of 50 concurrent connections sufficient for most
environments? Is there re
11 matches
Mail list logo
