Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/22/2010 10:35 PM:
> On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 19:16:31 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/22/2010 6:55 PM:
>>> CPAN is a core module, so it should be installed by default. And
>>> acquiring modules via CPAN is already well documented. :)
>>
>> I
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:35:18 -0400
Sahil Tandon articulated:
> If you want to write something, I can throw it in the comments, but I
> do not want to actually "support" this script. It is intended only
> for people who know how to use it.
I agree. A system's administrator that doesn't have a se
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 19:16:31 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/22/2010 6:55 PM:
> > CPAN is a core module, so it should be installed by default. And
> > acquiring modules via CPAN is already well documented. :)
>
> I simply think the bar is set a bit high. OPs with no
Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/22/2010 6:55 PM:
> On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 13:55:49 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> [ .. ]
>
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~sahil/scripts/checkdbl.pl.txt
>
> Just so we are all on the same page: use with caution!
>
>> Sahil, if you're reading this, you may want to cons
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 13:55:49 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[ .. ]
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sahil/scripts/checkdbl.pl.txt
Just so we are all on the same page: use with caution!
> Sahil, if you're reading this, you may want to consider adding some
> basic instructions on installing cpan and t
Ned Slider put forth on 10/22/2010 2:53 PM:
> I guess we can agree to disagree - I simply wanted to highlight the fact
> that using such rules can result in ham being blocked, regardless of how
> you want to define that.
I think we may be disagreeing on terminology definitions Ned, but we
definit
On 22/10/10 19:55, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ned Slider put forth on 10/22/2010 10:50 AM:
On 20/10/10 04:35, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/19/2010 8:09 PM:
You're missing some of the better spam prevention methods here, such as
decent HELO checks, and an RBL or two.
I'd sugg
Ned Slider put forth on 10/22/2010 10:50 AM:
> On 20/10/10 04:35, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/19/2010 8:09 PM:
>>
>>> You're missing some of the better spam prevention methods here, such as
>>> decent HELO checks, and an RBL or two.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest at least adding rej
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks
> > permit_sasl_authenticated,
> > reject_unauth_destination
> > ...
> > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
> > reject_rbl_client psbl.surriel.com
> > reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org
On 20/10/10 04:35, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/19/2010 8:09 PM:
You're missing some of the better spam prevention methods here, such as
decent HELO checks, and an RBL or two.
I'd suggest at least adding reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname in
there, as well as (testin
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/21/2010 4:33 PM:
> Yup.
>
> reject_unknown_client_hostname is fine for MXen and large providers, but
> it will hurt simple relaying with many false positives.
There are thousands upon thousands of web forum servers that will fall
victim to reject_unknown_client_hos
On 10/21/2010 05:16 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Jeroen Geilman said:
Make sure you understand the difference between
smtpd_reject_unknown_helo_hostname and
smtpd_reject_unknown_[reverse_]client_hostname.
Ok -- here's what I understand them each to be:
- reject_unknown_helo_hostname will reje
Brian Evans - Postfix List put forth on 10/20/2010 12:57 PM:
> In your opinion, would check_reverse_client_hostname_access (Postfix
> 2.6+) work better here?
> Many dynamic zombies don't always resolve forward.
Operationally it probably won't make a difference as most ISPs who
bother to assign rd
Steve Jenkins put forth on 10/19/2010 11:12 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner said:
>> This will probably be a big help to Steve.
>
> Thanks, Stan. That fqrdns.pcre file rocks. Is that something you created?
> May I share the link with others?
Glad it's working well for you. That file was donated to me via an
Jeroen Geilman said:
Make sure you understand the difference between
smtpd_reject_unknown_helo_hostname and
smtpd_reject_unknown_[reverse_]client_hostname.
Ok - here's what I understand them each to be:
-reject_unknown_helo_hostname will reject a request if the remote
mail server does
On 10/19/2010 11:35 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/19/2010 8:09 PM:
You're missing some of the better spam prevention methods here, such as
decent HELO checks, and an RBL or two.
I'd suggest at least adding reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname in
there, as well as (t
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:38:11 -0600
Steve Jenkins articulated:
> smtpd_use_tls = yes
This is deprecated. Please see:
http://www.postfix.com/postconf.5.html#smtpd_tls_security_level
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u...@seibercom.net
_
TO REP
On 10/20/2010 05:41 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Jeroen said:
My personal server uses:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_desti
ssage-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of pf at alt-ctrl-del.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:04 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
On 2010-10-18 9:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
The instruct
Stan Hoeppner said:
>This will probably be a big help to Steve.
Thanks, Stan. That fqrdns.pcre file rocks. Is that something you created?
May I share the link with others?
I had already added the spamhaus DBL checks (after Jeroen nudged me toward
their Zen IP blocklist), but Surriel PSBL is new t
Jeroen said:
My personal server uses:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname,
warn_if_reject
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 10/19/2010 8:09 PM:
> You're missing some of the better spam prevention methods here, such as
> decent HELO checks, and an RBL or two.
>
> I'd suggest at least adding reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname in
> there, as well as (testing out)
> reject_[invalid|unknown|
Well, let's say I can provide you with some pointers.
That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to study the documentation
thoroughly.
Thank you nonetheless. I was starting to get the impression that doing
anything other than telling people to read the documentation was verboten.
;) I'm not
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Jenkins [st...@stevejenkins.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 11:50 AM
To: Terry Gilsenan; Postfix users
Subject: RE: Fighting Backscatter
>Hi, Terry. Again, very helpful advice presented in a wa
and finger wags, I'm open to quietly sinking mail that I
can't deliver. Any pointers on exactly how to do that?
Thanks again,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Terry Gilsenan [mailto:terry.gilse...@interoil.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:27 PM
To: Steve Jenkins; Postfix users
fix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeroen Geilman
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:10 PM
*To:* postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject:* Re: Fighting Backscatter
Oh, and please don't top-post.
J.
And you're still top-posting.
--
J.
files, since a
virtual_alias_domain is potentially a wildcard recipient domain.
-Original Message-
From: Wietse Venema [mailto:wie...@porcupine.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Steve Jenkins
Cc: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
Oh, and please don't top-post.
--
J.
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Jenkins [st...@stevejenkins.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 10:52 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: RE: Fighting Backscatter
>I will gladly solve the RIGHT problem. The fact that I'm here loo
x.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of pf at alt-ctrl-del.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:04 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
> On 2010-10-18 9:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>> The instructions at http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATT
upine.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Steve Jenkins
Cc: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
Oh, and please don't top-post.
--
J.
pecific guidance there, or
anywhere else, is much appreciated.
Thanks,
SteveJ
-Original Message-
From: Wietse Venema [mailto:wie...@porcupine.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Steve Jenkins
Cc: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
> Gotit. Thanks
On 2010-10-18 9:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
The instructions at http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
seem to only address what to do if MY server is the one being
forged. In the above example, it seems that procom.ca is being
forged. How should I configure my Postfix installation so
On 10/19/2010 7:00 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* martijn.list:
2. Do not forward *any* emails, period.
That's probably the simplest solution :)
Wouldn't using an owner alias be a solution? (see expand_owner_alias).
You can set the owner alias of the forward to some internal address.
This in
>> Wouldn't using an owner alias be a solution? (see expand_owner_alias).
>>
>> You can set the owner alias of the forward to some internal address.
>> This internal address will only be used to 'suck-up' the bounces of
>> forwarded messages.
>
> Interesting idea!
It works for me. I forward a cop
* martijn.list :
> >> 2. Do not forward *any* emails, period.
> >
> > That's probably the simplest solution :)
>
> Wouldn't using an owner alias be a solution? (see expand_owner_alias).
>
> You can set the owner alias of the forward to some internal address.
> This internal address will only be
>> 2. Do not forward *any* emails, period.
>
> That's probably the simplest solution :)
Wouldn't using an owner alias be a solution? (see expand_owner_alias).
You can set the owner alias of the forward to some internal address.
This internal address will only be used to 'suck-up' the bounces of
* Charles Marcus :
> As has been told to you more than once, the correct solution is simple...
>
> 1. Stop forwarding spam, or
As we all know that not really easily done. I might consider a mail
"ham" while other systems consider the mail to be "spam".
The first step must be to check HOW MANY m
On 2010-10-18 9:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> The instructions at http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
> seem to only address what to do if MY server is the one being
> forged. In the above example, it seems that procom.ca is being
> forged. How should I configure my Postfix installation
Steve Jenkins:
> Gotit. Thanks again for helping me out. I'm still learning.
>
> So it seems I need to figure out how to stop the backscatter process at step
> 6 and NOT return the bounce to the original sender.
No. Solve the RIGHT problem. DO NOT forward SPAM.
Wietse
On 10/18/2010 8:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Gotit. Thanks again for helping me out. I'm still learning.
So it seems I need to figure out how to stop the backscatter process at step
6 and NOT return the bounce to the original sender.
The solution is to not forward spam to outside accounts. Tha
..@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:07 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
> 1) SpamCo forges a message from innoc...@victim.com and sends it to
> mya...@familyname.com
>
> 2) My ser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 18.10.2010 20:06, Wietse Venema a écrit :
>> 1) SpamCo forges a message from innoc...@victim.com and sends it to
>> mya...@familyname.com
>>
>> 2) My server (familyname.com) accepts the message because
>> mya...@familyname is a valid recipient that
> 1) SpamCo forges a message from innoc...@victim.com and sends it to
> mya...@familyname.com
>
> 2) My server (familyname.com) accepts the message because
> mya...@familyname is a valid recipient that appears in my virtual
> aliases file, then forwards the message (based on the info in that
> vir
t: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
> Hi, Wietse. Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm a big fan of Postfix, so
first
> of all, thank you for developing such a great product. I cringe thinking
> about the days when I used to have to run Sendmail (shudder).
>
> Ok... so let me se
Steve Jenkins:
> Hi, Wietse. Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm a big fan of Postfix, so first
> of all, thank you for developing such a great product. I cringe thinking
> about the days when I used to have to run Sendmail (shudder).
>
> Ok... so let me see if I understand what is happening on my se
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:47:31PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> 2) My server (familyname.com) accepts the message because mya...@familyname
> is a valid recipient that appears in my virtual aliases file, then forwards
> the message (based on the info in that virtual aliases file) to my aunt's
> a
@porcupine.org]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 12:13 PM
To: Steve Jenkins
Cc: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
> There are a few entries in there that seem to match the "<>" bill, but I'm
> not sure I'm understanding what they're sa
Steve Jenkins:
> There are a few entries in there that seem to match the "<>" bill, but I'm
> not sure I'm understanding what they're saying, or even what I should be
> looking for to troubleshoot.
>
> For some background, this is my personal server that I run my family's mail
> on. There are a fe
er-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:28 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Fighting Backscatter
Steve Jenkins:
> I've read through the readme at:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.htm
Steve Jenkins:
> I've read through the readme at:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
>
> and thought I was doing everything right. but my personal mail server is
> still getting listed at Backscatterer.org. :(
Have you looked in your logfile for mail from <>, that is sent by
your
50 matches
Mail list logo
