>There is no need to duplicate the threshold check.
I'm not duplicating the check. I was just considering using the logged,
recorded checks (of a minimum value) and making use of those. They could
trigger a ban of the IP via fail2ban's respective jail's frequency
settings, based on those log e
Scott Techlist:
> Re this log line:
> >Jul 17 14:23:36 tn3 postfix/postscreen[21915]: DNSBL rank 3 for
> [46.102.230.94]:63564
>
> Maybe it would be safe to filter on this line where the "DNSBL rank [n]" was
> >= my threshold:
As documented:
When the postscreen_greet_wait time has elapsed, A
On 17/07/17 21:04, Scott Techlist wrote:
>> Postcreen logs DISCONNECT for clients that PASS the "after 220 greeting"
>> tests (bare newline, non-SMTP command, pipelining).
> Exactly what I was afraid of, thanks for the confirmation.
>
>> I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen
* Wietse Venema :
> Scott Techlist:
> > As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts,
> > I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they
> > try repeatedly.
> >
> > I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't se
>Postcreen logs DISCONNECT for clients that PASS the "after 220 greeting"
>tests (bare newline, non-SMTP command, pipelining).
Exactly what I was afraid of, thanks for the confirmation.
>I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging to
produce
>fail2ban rules. postscreen is
On 17/07/17 16:43, Scott Techlist wrote:
> As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts,
> I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they
> try repeatedly.
>
> I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't seem
>
Am 17.07.2017 um 20:06 schrieb /dev/rob0:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:33:24PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging
>> to produce fail2ban rules. postscreen is designed to handle a lot
>> of abuse with near-zero resources.
>
> Granted,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:33:24PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging
> to produce fail2ban rules. postscreen is designed to handle a lot
> of abuse with near-zero resources.
Granted, not much benefit within Postfix. But consider: the
Scott Techlist:
> As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts,
> I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they
> try repeatedly.
>
> I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't seem
> to have much to do anymor
