On 03/09/17 00:43, Wietse Venema wrote:
> On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
>> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
>
> Allen Coates:
>> How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of
On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
Allen Coates:
> How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of to
> postfix?
That requires new code for a config
On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
>
How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of to
postfix?
Allen C
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:01:21AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Allen Coates:
> > > GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> > > decision to reject the message has already been made;
> > > It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:01:21AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Allen Coates:
> > GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> > decision to reject the message has already been made;
> > It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the (bad) remote
> > host, dimi
Allen Coates:
> GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> decision to reject the message has already been made;
> It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the (bad) remote
> host, diminishing spam throughput, and eroding the host's useful life-span.
postsc
Kov?cs Albert:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:42 PM, Wietse Venema
> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure how one (type of) dns query is a performance concern,>> and
> >> another is not, see below.
>
> > You see no performance difference between querying a small number
> > of well-operated DNS servers that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
If you want to block more DUL ip blocks, the easiest way is probably
to use some upstream DUL DNSBL providers, and use rbldnsd to create
your private DNSBL to provide your own additions.
There also is a community-maintained pcre file for smtpd
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> I'm not sure how one (type of) dns query is a performance concern,>> and
>> another is not, see below.
> You see no performance difference between querying a small number
> of well-operated DNS servers that are chosen by the local sy
Kov?cs Albert:
> On Monday, March 9, 2015 4:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> > For performance reasons, postscreen does not do PTR lookups, nor
> > will PTR lookups be added to postscreen in the foreseeable future.
>
>
> I'm not sure how one (type of) dns query is a performance concern,
> and anoth
On Monday, March 9, 2015 4:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> For performance reasons, postscreen does not do PTR lookups, nor
> will PTR lookups be added to postscreen in the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure how one (type of) dns query is a performance concern,
and another is not, see below.
> Eithe
On 3/9/2015 7:02 AM, Kovács Albert wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like postscreen to have the ability to reject clients based on a
> regex pattern based on their PTR records.
>
> I use both the pregreet and the dns block feature of postfix.
> However it seems that still too many spamming hosts
> manage
On Mar 9, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Kovács Albert wrote:
> I'd like postscreen to have the ability to reject clients based on a regex
> pattern based on their PTR records.
If it has to be postscreen, you can setup a local RBL lookup and score it high
enough to trigger a rejection.
But based on your pa
13 matches
Mail list logo
