I have 10 years of sending emails, (because I have e-card sites), and due to
the volume
I get a lot of incoming spam. I would like to suggest to you that you are
not going to stop
all spam, 100% all the time, no matter what you do. And Though I understand
your desire to
to accept all the emails at
> As I read it, 'smtp_header_checks' provides a way to do header
> checks only on messages that are leaving the system, leaving local
> delivery unaffected?
The SMTP client cannot add or remove recipients. The decision to
forward mail needs to be made before the queue manager.
Therefore, milter_
On Sep 21, 2013, at 15:24, "Jan P. Kessler" wrote:
> Am 21.09.2013 15:17, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
>>> Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
>>> achieve the same thing?
>>>
>>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
>>
>> Not, if the required heade
> As I read it, 'smtp_header_checks' provides a way to do header checks only on
> messages that are leaving the system, leaving local delivery unaffected?
You are right. It should achieve the same.
On Sep 21, 2013, at 15:17, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>> Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
>> achieve the same thing?
>>
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
>
> Not, if the required headers are added later on by a content_filter.
The documen
Am 21.09.2013 15:17, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
> > Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
> > achieve the same thing?
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
>
> Not, if the required headers are added later on by a content_filter.
Just to be clea
> Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
> achieve the same thing?
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
Not, if the required headers are added later on by a content_filter.
On Sep 21, 2013, at 14:53, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>> The way I read his request is that he wants to forward non-spam
>> only, and is looking for a Postfix solution that supports this.
>>
>> The best proposal I can come up with is a Milter that triggers on
>> headers added by has spam filter, and
> The way I read his request is that he wants to forward non-spam
> only, and is looking for a Postfix solution that supports this.
>
> The best proposal I can come up with is a Milter that triggers on
> headers added by has spam filter, and that adds a second
> recipient only if the mail does not
Am 20.09.2013 21:42, schrieb azurIt:
>> Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
>>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject
>>> single legitimate e-mail message.
>>
>> ok ,so why cry about you
On Sep 20, 2013, at 22:03, azurIt wrote:
>> You are creating this problem yourself. No spam filtering is 100%
>> without false positives, but properly configured before-queue defenses
>> generally cut out ~90% of the garbage you get from bots and zombies. Or
>> more, depending on how tight of
Hello Azur,
On 9/20/2013 12:45 PM, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> Has it occurred to you that the reason lots of your users enable
> forwarding to Gmail may be the fact that you accept everything? And
> that they are essentially using Gmail as the spam filter they need
> because of this?
Joni makes
>Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
>> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
>> that
>> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard spam
>> filter techniques?
>> Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, ... No one is doing it, most of th
On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:21, azurIt wrote:
>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
>>>
>>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
not sending). Any tips how can i d
azurIt:
> I was just friendly ASKING, if Postfix is able to _not_ forward a
> message based on it's headers.
Assumung that these headers are added by a spam filter, this would
require a Milter plugin that examines messages after your spam
filter, and that dynamically adds a forwarding address to t
On 2013-09-20 1:31 PM, azurIt wrote:
I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks
Then don't allow blanket forwarders, or just accept it when someone
blocks you for good cause because of your silly decisions.
- there are and always be false positives.
For CONTENT filter base
Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
> that
> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard spam
> filter techniques?
> Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, ... No one is doing it, most of them hav
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>azurIt:
>> I was just friendly ASKING, if Postfix is able to _not_ forward a
>> message based on it's headers.
>
>Assumung that these headers are added by a spam filter, this would
>require a Milter plugin that examines messages after your spam
>filter, and that dyn
Am 20.09.2013 22:10, schrieb azurIt:
>> Am 20.09.2013 22:03, schrieb azurIt:
>>> One note to all fans of 'spam filters rejecting' here: Did you even notice
>>> that
>>> NO ONE of big e-mail providers are rejecting messages based on standard
>>> spam filter techniques?
>>> Google, Yahoo, Micros
/dev/rob0:
> No, I have not noticed that. Neither have you! You have noticed, at
> the top of this thread, that gmail is rejecting you!
The way I read his request is that he wants to forward non-spam
only, and is looking for a Postfix solution that supports this.
The best proposal I can come up
On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
not sending). Any tips how can i disable forwarding in c
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:03:32PM +0200, azurIt wrote:
> >>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users
> enabled forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is
> also forwarded. Today gmail block us because of spam (whic
>azurIt wrote:
>
>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
>> legitimate e-mail message.
>
>Spam volume these days is such that accepting, processing, and storing
>**all** mail is be
>Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
>> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
>> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
>> legitimate e-mail message.
>
>ok ,so why cry about your own decisions ?
Where exacly i was 'cryin
Am 20.09.2013 18:12, schrieb azurIt:
> Blocking emails based on spam filters are always wrong
says who?
> Spam recognition will NEVER be 100%
nothing will 100%, nowehere
> there are always false positives
yes, and there are some 100 times more spam
> We are accepting all emails and filter th
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
>> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just fo
>On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
>> Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
>> not sending). Any tips how can i disable forw
On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:12, azurIt wrote:
>> On 2013-09-20 09:42, azurIt wrote:
>>> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
>>> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
>>> Today gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding,
>On Sep 20, 2013, at 18:21, azurIt wrote:
>
>>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
>>>
Hi,
i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded.
Am 20.09.2013 18:12, schrieb azurIt:
> Blocking emails based on spam filters are always wrong. Spam recognition will
> NEVER be 100%, there are always false positives. We are accepting all emails
> and filter them after. I just need to tell Postfix to NOT forward particular
> messages and only d
azurIt wrote:
> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
> legitimate e-mail message.
Spam volume these days is such that accepting, processing, and storing
**all** mail is becoming m
Am 20.09.2013 19:31, schrieb azurIt:
> I don't believe in rejecting e-mails based on spam checks - there are and
> always be false positives. I will rather accept 100 spams than reject single
> legitimate e-mail message.
ok ,so why cry about your own decisions ?
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schette
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, azurIt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding, not
> sending). Any tips how
Am 20.09.2013 16:42, schrieb azurIt:
> Hi,
>
> i'm having problems with spam forwarding - lot's of our users enabled
> forwarding to gmail and every spam they receive is also forwarded. Today
> gmail block us because of spam (which we were just forwarding, not sending).
> Any tips how can i dis
35 matches
Mail list logo
