Re: Backscatter problems + fixes + RFC idea

On 20/03/2021 18:52, Rahul Dhesi wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote: You may find my script helpful: https://www.timedicer.co.uk/programs/help/relay-enforcer.sh.php Looks very interesting, thanks. I ran 'shellcheck' on it and saw many scary warnings; highly recommended to revis

Re: Backscatter problems + fixes + RFC idea

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote: You may find my script helpful: https://www.timedicer.co.uk/programs/help/relay-enforcer.sh.php Looks very interesting, thanks. I ran 'shellcheck' on it and saw many scary warnings; highly recommended to revise the code to fix all of them. Rahul

Re: Backscatter problems + fixes + RFC idea

On 20/03/2021 01:53, Rahul Dhesi wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Wietse Venema wrote: See examples in: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#default_delivery_status_filter (this was originally designed to turn soft TLS errors into hard ones). Thanks, that is a vey nice feature I did not know abo

Re: Backscatter problems + fixes + RFC idea

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Wietse Venema wrote: See examples in: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#default_delivery_status_filter (this was originally designed to turn soft TLS errors into hard ones). Thanks, that is a vey nice feature I did not know about. I should mention that my strategy of

Re: Backscatter problems + fixes + RFC idea

Rahul Dhesi: > There is a second problem for which the fix is not so elegant. If Gmail > detects spam but returns a temporary error, the spam will remain in the > queue until its lifetime expires. The only way I found of dealing with > this is to run a cron job that does 'mailq', finds Gmail spa

Re: Backscatter questions

On 01 Oct 2017, at 09:59, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > a little searching says it's correct: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/postfix-users@postfix.org/msg25973.html Excellent! Thanks for researching that. -- Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.

Re: Backscatter questions

On 01 Oct 2017, at 08:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: 2. their sender addresses should be validated with smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender On 01.10.17 09:22, @lbutlr wrote: Do Address delimiters have an issue with this? I thought they did. I thought that's exactly what address delimiters are f

Re: Backscatter questions

On 01 Oct 2017, at 08:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > 2. their sender addresses should be validated with > smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender Do Address delimiters have an issue with this? I thought they did. That is, u...@example.com sends and email "from" user+delimi...@example.com and smtpd_r

Re: Backscatter questions

On 27.09.17 13:49, J Doe wrote: 1. From what I understand, “backscatter” refers to e-mails such as non-delivery reports being sent back to the originator of a spam message. As the originator is often a forged address, the non-delivery reports is essentially junk data. Would this be a correct d

Re: Backscatter questions

J Doe: > > > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > > > J Doe skrev den 2017-09-27 22:20: > > > > [snip] > >> Is there a way to achieve this or as you noted, are whitelists to be > >> avoided ? If whitelists are to be avoided what is the best practice > >> for handling this sce

Re: Backscatter questions

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > J Doe skrev den 2017-09-27 22:20: > > [snip] >> Is there a way to achieve this or as you noted, are whitelists to be >> avoided ? If whitelists are to be avoided what is the best practice >> for handling this scenario ? > > why not add

Re: Backscatter questions

J Doe skrev den 2017-09-27 22:20: [snip] Is there a way to achieve this or as you noted, are whitelists to be avoided ? If whitelists are to be avoided what is the best practice for handling this scenario ? why not add example.org on google apps mx ? :=) if useers not wanting your mailserver

Re: Backscatter questions

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > J Doe skrev den 2017-09-27 19:49: > >> I recently configured Postfix 3.1.0 on a low-volume, Internet facing >> server. Mail operations are normal, but I had two questions regarding >> backscatter. > > ... > >> 1. From what I understand

Re: Backscatter questions

J Doe skrev den 2017-09-27 19:49: I recently configured Postfix 3.1.0 on a low-volume, Internet facing server. Mail operations are normal, but I had two questions regarding backscatter. ... 1. From what I understand, “backscatter” refers to e-mails such as non-delivery reports being sent ba

Re: Backscatter spam issue

On 10/26/2014 8:01 AM, Isaac Grover wrote: > Good morning all, > > It seems that blocking backscatter is an issue that plenty of folks > are talking about but working solutions are vague and rare. Our > single MTA running Postfix 2.11.0 does an okay job at blocking spam, > but backscatter is a kn

Re: backscatter

Thank you Wietse, You spurred me to look at the logs and take a closer look. The problem was an old whitelist entry from when we were in the ISP business. Removing the entry solved my problem. Mike On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:34:50 Wietse Venema wrote: > Mike McGinn: > > I ma getting some bac

Re: backscatter

Mike McGinn: > I ma getting some backscatter problems lately. If you are receiving backscatter mail, then filtering on client properties won't do much good, because in this case the clients are real mail servers not spambots. Instead, reject mail for non-existent recipients if possible, and try t

Re: backscatter

On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:14:41 you wrote: > Original Message > > > Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:55:49 AM -0500 > > From: Mike McGinn > > To: Postfix users > > Subject: backscatter > > > > I ma getting some backscatter problems lately. > > I used to have the l

Re: backscatter

Am 04.03.2014 17:55, schrieb Mike McGinn: > I ma getting some backscatter problems lately. > I used to have the line: > reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname, > in my smtpd_client_restrictions but I commented it out because an important > client is on a microsoft cloud and had been having problem

Re: backscatter

Am 04.03.2014 17:55, schrieb Mike McGinn: > I ma getting some backscatter problems lately. > I used to have the line: > reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname, > in my smtpd_client_restrictions but I commented it out because an important > client is on a microsoft cloud and had been having problem

Re: Backscatter Mail

Actually, the program a) grabs pop3 object b) parses it c) modifies subject slightly with certain keywords based on email contents d) based on it builds smtp object. Hence, the from and to of the smtp object is being assigned by from and to of the parsed pop object. So, it is not a resend. The t

Re: Backscatter Mail

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:31:20PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote: > We are running an application which pulls mail from yahoo pop3 server > and ultimately resends it, via local postfix server, keeping the same > from and to addresses. This is not generally possible. POP3 does not record the envelop

Re: Backscatter

On 2013-04-19 7:10 AM, John Allen wrote: On 19/04/2013 7:03 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2013-04-19 6:57 AM, John Allen wrote: Is there a way of testing for backscatter? I do not believe that my setup up is a source of backscatter. However, believing and knowing are different things. As lo

Re: Backscatter

On 19/04/2013 7:03 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2013-04-19 6:57 AM, John Allen wrote: Is there a way of testing for backscatter? I do not believe that my setup up is a source of backscatter. However, believing and knowing are different things. As long as you reject messages destined for inv

Re: Backscatter

On 2013-04-19 6:57 AM, John Allen wrote: Is there a way of testing for backscatter? I do not believe that my setup up is a source of backscatter. However, believing and knowing are different things. As long as you reject messages destined for invalid recipients, and don't accept-then-bounce

Re: Backscatter Theory

On 8/9/2011 1:18 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: > All, > > I apologize in advance for this Postmaster 101 question. > > Am I correct in understanding that every mail server that is 1) > attempting > to deliver e-mail to an invalid address on my server and 2) is > from=<>, and > 3) the message did not o

Re: Backscatter Theory

On 09/08/2011 19:18, Gary Chambers wrote: All, I apologize in advance for this Postmaster 101 question. Am I correct in understanding that every mail server that is 1) attempting to deliver e-mail to an invalid address on my server and 2) is from=<>, and 3) the message did not originate on my s

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

Am 05.08.2011 21:24, schrieb Gary Chambers: > Jim, > >> I don't see a problem, other than people trying to deliver email to your >> MX to invalid recipients and from clients w/no rDNS. Your MX is >> rejecting >> them. > > My mail server handles a trivial amount of mail so I panicked upon seeing

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Gary Chambers wrote: [snip] > > Thanks. Once the sick feeling in my stomach subsided and I started > seeing things a bit more clearly, I realized that I just probably had > to ride it out. Ride it out? LOL! That's probably going to get worse, if anythi

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

Jim, I don't see a problem, other than people trying to deliver email to your MX to invalid recipients and from clients w/no rDNS. Your MX is rejecting them. My mail server handles a trivial amount of mail so I panicked upon seeing the dramatic increase in log traffic. Further compounding ma

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Gary Chambers wrote: > Jim, > > > What problem are you trying to solve? > > Thanks for the reply. > > I've been poring over the backscatterer README and from what I can > tell, my server isn't the problem. I don't see a problem, other than people trying

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

Jim, What problem are you trying to solve? Thanks for the reply. I've been poring over the backscatterer README and from what I can tell, my server isn't the problem. Having the experts validate that will help substantially, though. I was concerned about my server being the backscatterer an

Re: Backscatter Assistance?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Gary Chambers wrote: [snip] > > Will someone please assist me in determining the problem or offer any > short- (or long-) term suggestions? Thank you very much! What problem are you trying to solve? Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* a

Re: Backscatter Email

On 7/13/2011 6:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > SOHO or not: ip-addresses in PTR are mostly not real mailservers The operative word here is "mostly". For instance, my outbound: $ dig mx hardwarefreak.com hardwarefreak.com. IN MX 10 greer.hardwarefreak.com. greer.hardwarefreak.com

Re: Backscatter Email

Am 14.07.2011 01:28, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 7/13/2011 3:08 PM, mouss wrote: >> Le 13/07/2011 19:04, motty.cruz a écrit : > >>> Received: from ucmx01.uzuncase.com (66-193-162-90.static.twtelecom.net >>> [66.193.162.90]) > >> you might start with >> /^(\d+\W){4}.*\.twtelecom\.net$/ >>

Re: Backscatter Email

On 7/13/2011 3:08 PM, mouss wrote: > Le 13/07/2011 19:04, motty.cruz a écrit : >> Received: from ucmx01.uzuncase.com (66-193-162-90.static.twtelecom.net >> [66.193.162.90]) > you might start with > /^(\d+\W){4}.*\.twtelecom\.net$/ > REJECT generic hostname. please use your ISP or fix

RE: Backscatter Email

- Цитат от motty.cruz (motty.c...@gmail.com), на 13.07.2011 в 20:04 - > Hi All, can anyone advise on how to effectively fight backscatter email. > ... > Any suggestions are welcome, thanks in Advance. > -Motty I have written a TCP table for signing outgoing mails using prvs scheme and a

Re: Backscatter Email

Le 13/07/2011 19:04, motty.cruz a écrit : > Hi All, can anyone advise on how to effectively fight backscatter email. > Below a typical header of the tons of backscatter email users get a day > > Return-Path: > X-Original-To: u...@domain.tld > Delivered-To: u...@domain.tld > Received: from host.do

Re: Backscatter Email

On 7/13/2011 12:04 PM, motty.cruz wrote: > Hi All, can anyone advise on how to effectively fight backscatter email. > Below a typical header of the tons of backscatter email users get a day > Start here: http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html Since you're using amavisd-new, investigate t

Re: Backscatter problem

Den 28-10-2010 13:01, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev: * Martin Kruse Jensen: Nice cmd - I'm sure I'll have much joy of that. Here's the full output: If you like that, please check out "pfqueue" :) <2...@grefta.dk>: user unknown. Command output: Invalid user specified. So, find out why mail for 2...

Re: Backscatter problem

* Martin Kruse Jensen : > Nice cmd - I'm sure I'll have much joy of that. Here's the full output: If you like that, please check out "pfqueue" :) > <2...@grefta.dk>: user unknown. Command output: Invalid user specified. So, find out why mail for 2...@grefta.dk is being accepted... In which map

Re: Backscatter problem

* Martin Kruse Jensen : > Den 28-10-2010 10:36, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev: > >* Martin Kruse Jensen: > >>Hi. > >> > >>I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my > >>postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon > >>messages. Yesterday I added local_recipi

Re: Backscatter problem

Den 28-10-2010 10:36, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev: * Martin Kruse Jensen: Hi. I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon messages. Yesterday I added local_recipient_maps but it dosn't seem to have helped...

Re: Backscatter problem

* Martin Kruse Jensen : > Hi. > > I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my > postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon > messages. Yesterday I added local_recipient_maps but it dosn't seem > to have helped... WHAT exactly is bouncing? Check the

Re: backscatter spam

On Tuesday 13 April 2010 16:32:03 motty.cruz wrote: > Hello, I seemed to be losing the fight against backscatter email, one of > our users is getting tons of backscatter spam a day. I'm using postfix > Mail_version 2.7.0 + amavisd (Spamassassin) on FreeBSD machine. Please > help! Did you try this

Re: backscatter issue

On 2/11/2010 3:50 AM, Dimitar Penev wrote: Hi Noel, Thank you for your help! I have searched our log for 9FE3785BA10 signature and found the beginning. Please see below. I have searched the log for other similar signatures with "from=<>" and it seems each of those problematic e-mails starts wi

Re: backscatter issue

Hi Noel, Thank you for your help! I have searched our log for 9FE3785BA10 signature and found the beginning. Please see below. I have searched the log for other similar signatures with "from=<>" and it seems each of those problematic e-mails starts with the two lines as I have put in the beginni

Re: backscatter issue

On 2/10/2010 12:51 PM, Dimitar Penev wrote: Hello All, I am not sure if this mailing list is the best place to ask this question. If not please point me to the better one. I am running postfix based mailserver. Few days ago however I have noticed that some of the emails I am sending fall in the

Re: backscatter

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:10:53PM +0200, K bharathan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky > wrote: > > Noel Jones wrote: > >> On 11/23/2009 3:25 PM, K bharathan wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:02 PM, /dev/rob0 >>> > wrote: > >>>Indeed, if

Re: backscatter

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Noel Jones wrote: > >> On 11/23/2009 3:25 PM, K bharathan wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:02 PM, /dev/rob0 >> > wrote: >>> >>>On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Robert Schetterer wrote: >>

Re: backscatter

Noel Jones wrote: On 11/23/2009 3:25 PM, K bharathan wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:02 PM, /dev/rob0 mailto:r...@gmx.co.uk>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > the server got a list of domains (those domains mail servers use this

Re: backscatter

On 11/23/2009 3:25 PM, K bharathan wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:02 PM, /dev/rob0 mailto:r...@gmx.co.uk>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > the server got a list of domains (those domains mail servers use this > > server as rela

Re: backscatter

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:02 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > > the server got a list of domains (those domains mail servers use this > > > server as relayhost)to relay out and does only smtp out; what could be > > > wrong in the above

Re: backscatter

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > the server got a list of domains (those domains mail servers use this > > server as relayhost)to relay out and does only smtp out; what could be > > wrong in the above config; appreciate ur assistance upon this > > thats the r

Re: backscatter

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:22:07AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > smtpd_sender_restrictions = > > check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/mydomains > > Remove that check_sender_access restriction, and configure SASL > properly. You are an open relay for anyone claiming to be from > example.com (

Re: backscatter

K bharathan wrote: in my access map 'mydomains' alongwith other allowed domains i've put an entry as follows: <> OK example.com OK is the above null sender is required ?! will this cause any harm? i think i'd try config sasl-auth -bharathan Plea

Re: backscatter

in my access map 'mydomains' alongwith other allowed domains i've put an entry as follows: <> OK example.com OK is the above null sender is required ?! will this cause any harm? i think i'd try config sasl-auth -bharathan On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Robert Schetterer

Re: backscatter

K bharathan schrieb: > hi all > my relay smtp out got listed with backscatterer.org > ; the following is my postconf: > > alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases > biff = no > canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical > command_directory = /usr/sbin > config_directory = /etc/po

Re: backscatter

K bharathan wrote: hi all my relay smtp out got listed with backscatterer.org ; the following is my postconf: alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases biff = no canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix content_fi

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Folks, it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding of Jim's setup and situation. > Clearly, you are *NOT* doing recipient verification, or > myotherserver.com would not be rejecting it. Never accept mail which > cannot be delivered. What he describes is that the final destination

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Miles Fidelman: > Wietse Venema wrote: > > Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what > > would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files, > > or in a mail distribution list). > > > > > Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying address

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Wietse Venema wrote: Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files, or in a mail distribution list). Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying addresses in .forward files? For list man

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Jim Lang: > But if mycli...@otherserver.com can for whatever reason not be > delivered, otherserver.com does what it is supposed to do and > rejects the mail during the smtp connection, which causes postfix > to send out a non-delivery report to vic...@randomdomain.com -- >

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

This page (http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html) looks like it describes part of your problem. Could be the solution Regards tobi I had had a lot of troubles with verification database. For example... new customer is added to SMTP relay, changed MX record to point my

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Jaroslaw Grzabel schrieb: > Jim Lang pisze: >> John Peach wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700 >>> Jim Lang wrote: >>> >>> John Peach wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 > Jim Lang wrote: > > >> Wietse Venema wrote: >>

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Jim Lang pisze: John Peach wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: John Peach wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: Wietse Venema wrote: Jim Lang: OK here is the scenario. Spammer sends mail to: u...@mycl

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

John Peach wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: John Peach wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: Wietse Venema wrote: Jim Lang: OK here is the scenario. Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclients

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Stan Hoeppner wrote: Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM: Wietse Venema wrote: Jim Lang: OK here is the scenario. Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address vic...@randomdomain.com If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: > John Peach wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 > > Jim Lang wrote: > > > > > >> Wietse Venema wrote: > >> > >>> Jim Lang: > >>> > >>> > OK here is the scenario. > > Spammer sends mail to: u...@mycl

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:53:14PM -0700, Jim Lang wrote: > OK here is the scenario. > Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address > vic...@randomdomain.com > > If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the > address is invalid, postix rejects

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

John Peach wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: Wietse Venema wrote: Jim Lang: OK here is the scenario. Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address vic...@randomdomain.com If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, no

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700 Jim Lang wrote: > Wietse Venema wrote: > > Jim Lang: > > > >> OK here is the scenario. > >> > >> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged > >> address vic...@randomdomain.com > >> > >> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, no

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Wietse Venema wrote: Jim Lang: OK here is the scenario. Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address vic...@randomdomain.com If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connec

Re: Backscatter being generated from mail aliased to other servers.

Jim Lang: > OK here is the scenario. > > Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address > vic...@randomdomain.com > > If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the > address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connection. > > Bu

Re: Backscatter email

Matt Richards さんは書きました: > Hello, > > I just want to check up on something ... > > I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to > get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with > forged from addresses. > > Today I still run my own mail server but

Re: Backscatter email

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:51:08AM +, Matt Richards wrote: > Does anybody know what happened? Have servers just been > reconfigured to not send backscatter from spam? Here in the YMMV department ... My little server hosts a few small Free Software community projects, one of which is a small (

Re: Backscatter email

Zitat von Wietse Venema : Matt Richards: Hello, I just want to check up on something ... I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with forged from addresses. Today I still run my own mail server b

Re: Backscatter email

Matt Richards: > Hello, > > I just want to check up on something ... > > I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to > get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with > forged from addresses. > > Today I still run my own mail server but I don't s

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Don't bounce you're overquota messages... just reject them :) at mail gateway level at smtp dialogue, this way you will be saving resources on scanning and later perhaps on bouncing them from any place :) http://postfixquotareject.ramattack.net :) :) > Mark Goodge schrieb: >> Dan Slay wrote: >>>

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Stan Hoeppner put forth on 9/15/2009 5:44 AM: > Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 9/15/2009 4:28 AM: > >> Then you can't avoid sending backscatter. Period. RFC 2821 clearly >> states: >> >> | If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and >> | later finds that the destination is incor

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 9/15/2009 4:28 AM: > Then you can't avoid sending backscatter. Period. RFC 2821 clearly > states: > > | If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and > | later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail > | cannot be delivered for some

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Dan Slay schrieb: Thanks, that's what I have read. Which is why this make things more awkward. I cannot see that holding a recipient list is a solution. [...] Hello Dan and others Has anybody experiences with the sendmail milter 'scam-backscatter' by Eland Systems? Maybe it may solve your pr

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Mark Goodge schrieb: > Dan Slay wrote: >> Thanks, that's what I have read. Which is why this make things more >> awkward. >> >> I cannot see that holding a recipient list is a solution. If, for >> instance, you relay for thousands of domains all going to different >> MTA's that hold each individual

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:12:52 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote: > Dan Slay wrote: >> Thanks, that's what I have read. Which is why this make things more >> awkward. >> >> I cannot see that holding a recipient list is a solution. If, for >> instance, you relay for thousands of domains all going to differe

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Dan Slay wrote: Thanks, that's what I have read. Which is why this make things more awkward. I cannot see that holding a recipient list is a solution. If, for instance, you relay for thousands of domains all going to different MTA's that hold each individual domains recipient list, its not rea

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

Thanks, that's what I have read. Which is why this make things more awkward. I cannot see that holding a recipient list is a solution. If, for instance, you relay for thousands of domains all going to different MTA's that hold each individual domains recipient list, its not really that straight fo

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

On 2009-09-15 Dan Slay wrote: > I'm looking for some information on preventing the sending of > backscatter from a Postfix gateway mail server. > > The server itself does not and will not hold a recipient list, Then you can't avoid sending backscatter. Period. RFC 2821 clearly states: | If an SM

Re: Backscatter on Gateway Mail Servers

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:45:53 +0100, Dan Slay wrote: > I'm looking for some information on preventing the sending of backscatter > from a Postfix gateway mail server. > > The server itself does not and will not hold a recipient list, therefore I > don't know what the best way forward would be? The

Re: backscatter

LuKreme wrote: Besides that, a lot of spammers sent mail out with forged from addresses so that if the spam isin't delivered to the To: i t might be delivered by some retarded mailserver to the forged From. I don't think any spammer worth his spammy salt uses a legitimate address - it's all f

Re: backscatter

On 4-Jul-2009, at 20:53, John Peach wrote: http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=usage well worth looking at Yeah, I added that a few months ago. -- How you have felt, o men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of m accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words

Re: backscatter

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 20:46:16 -0600 LuKreme wrote: > On 3-Jul-2009, at 20:35, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > what is the hate for backscatter founded in? > > > Wait until you get hundreds of thousands of backscatter where > someone has sent out spams with your user name as the From: address > and hel

Re: backscatter

On 3-Jul-2009, at 20:35, Andrew Thompson wrote: what is the hate for backscatter founded in? Wait until you get hundreds of thousands of backscatter where someone has sent out spams with your user name as the From: address and helpful mail systems bounce them 'back' to you since your addre

Re: backscatter

Zitat von R Johnson : On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:23 +0100, kj wrote: --kj What I suggest you do is set up some kind of forwarding for Postscatter so it is sent to: wie...@porcupine.org. I wish everyone who suffers Postscatter would do it. Then perhaps the ignorant retarded f&ckwit may get the fh

Re: backscatter

K bharathan wrote: i've been running this relay gateway for 2 yrs now; i'd no problems of backscatters; have got a relay_recipient table and it take care of this; also kept a check on multiple bounces from an empty envelope sender; this particular scatter was for a customer domain and haven't

Re: backscatter

i've been running this relay gateway for 2 yrs now; i'd no problems of backscatters; have got a relay_recipient table and it take care of this; also kept a check on multiple bounces from an empty envelope sender; this particular scatter was for a customer domain and haven't kept recipient table f

Re: backscatter

Chris Babcock wrote: Don't feed the troll The person who posted the incomprehensible remark about postscatter is no longer on the list. Other than expressing his dissatisfaction in an inappropriate way, I have no idea what he was talking about. Further speculation as to what he actually r

Re: backscatter

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:35:11 -0400 Andrew Thompson wrote: > Other than hanging around and possibly multiplying in mail queues, > what is the hate for backscatter founded in? Isn't this one of those > things you're going to have to deal with if you run a mail server? More to the point, is there *

Re: backscatter

R Johnson wrote: What I suggest you do is set up some kind of forwarding for Postscatter so it is sent to: wie...@porcupine.org. I wish everyone who suffers Postscatter would do it. OK, I realize there is obvious hate for Wietse in this post, so lets ignore that for now... Other than hangin

Re: backscatter

This poster is terminated. I authorize the other postfix list admins to terminate inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate behavior on this list. Wietse

Re: backscatter

Sorry, I misread your log. from=<> usually means a bounce of some kind - could be legitimate. You'll have to see where the original mail was sent to, the headers in the mail will give you a clue. --kj

  1   2   >