--On October 21, 2012 9:53:49 AM + Mike's unattended mail
wrote:
On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek wrote:
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
comply with my concept of what is "right".
Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which
inde
Am 21.10.2012 16:21, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
>>> The RFC certainly does not insist that senders buy a domain name.
>>
>> Who said anything about buying a domain name? Any server connected to
>> the Internet can have a host name,
>
> If you use the FQDN format for the EHLO, it cannot be
On 21/10/12 16:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
>> On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
>>> incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
>>
>> How do you think a competent s
On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
How do you think a competent sys admin sets the EHLO under the
circumstances of not
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> No, it isn't right to deliver spam. Spam should be rejected, because
> if it isn't then the sending server has no incentive to clean up its
> act.
How does a rejection create incentive for a spam-sending server to
clean up? If this is a botnet node w/ unwitt
On 20/10/2012 18:27, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
"serious" but either incompetent or on a cost-saving agenda, and t
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:24 + (UTC)
Mike's unattended mail articulated:
> Your whitehouse remark is an illogical "appeal to authority". You're
> actually the only one to have a post that's unworthy of response.
And yet you did ...
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u...@seibercom.net
Am 21.10.2012 13:22, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
> The logical debate to this point have not favored proponents of the
> two crude and sloppy techniques that I mentioned. But, I'm open for
> good rationale; both for my benefit and the OPs.
what is so difficult to undestand?
if you are lack
On 2012-10-21, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's no longer
> relevant to this list. Thanks.
If you perceive RFC compliance as a religious matter, please feel free
to disregard this thread. Thanks.
To be clear, the hot-headed remarks that endorse using IP ad
On 21 Oct 2012, at 11:05, Mike's unattended mail
wrote:
> You're the first to post an ad hominem, without so much as even
> bundling it with a single logical argument.
Which should have been the point where this thread immediately halted...
Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's n
On 2012-10-20, peter evans wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 01:14:19PM +, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
>> From: Mike's unattended mail
>
> I think that about says how much value your opinions have.
>
>> * dnsbl
>
> If it is good enough for the whitehouse, it is probably good
>
On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek wrote:
>
> But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
> comply with my concept of what is "right".
Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which
indeed promotes a live and let live approach.
It is precisely those who ru
Am 20.10.2012 18:01, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
> On 10/20/2012 03:14 PM, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
>> On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang wrote:
>>> What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
>>* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
>>* greylistin
--On October 20, 2012 5:27:09 PM + Mike's unattended mail
wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
"serious" but either incompetent or on a cost
--On October 20, 2012 1:14:19 PM + Mike's unattended mail
wrote:
On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang wrote:
What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
* greylisting
crude and sloppy cost-cutting appro
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>
> DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
> email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
"serious" but either incompetent or on a cost-saving agenda, and then
there are those who are "serious", and have en
On 10/20/2012 03:14 PM, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang wrote:
What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
* greylisting
crude and sloppy cost-cutting approaches:
* dnsbl
Am 20.10.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
> crude and sloppy cost-cutting approaches:
>
> * dnsbl
> * reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
>
> The crude and sloppy approaches are used by:
>
> 1) corporations maximizing profits. Their market consists of naive
> users who have no
On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang wrote:
>
> What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
* greylisting
crude and sloppy cost-cutting approaches:
* dnsbl
* reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
The crude and sloppy
On 25/09/2012 16:52, francis picabia wrote:
I didn't see that response on the list, so perhaps it was sent to only
to you. This sounds like nonsense to me. DNS BL's block thousands of
messages cheaply, yes. What is wrong with that? Unless we have lots of
false positives, what is the problem? If
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Mikkel Bang wrote:
> 2012/9/20 Anonymous :
>>>Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your advice I
>>>finally ended up with:
>>>
>>>..+ postfix-anti-UCE.txt +..
>>
>> "Ultimate" server, or "cheap" server?
>>
>> Postfix-anti-UCE.txt is a poor
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Mikkel Bang wrote:
> 2012/9/20 Anonymous :
> >>Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all
> >>your advice I finally ended up with:
> >>
> >>..+ postfix-anti-UCE.txt +..
> >
> > "Ultimate" server, or "cheap" server?
> >
> > Postfix-anti-U
2012/9/20 Anonymous :
>>Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your advice I
>>finally ended up with:
>>
>>..+ postfix-anti-UCE.txt +..
>
> "Ultimate" server, or "cheap" server?
>
> Postfix-anti-UCE.txt is a poor choice because of the damage it does to
> legitimate mail. Alt
On 8/23/2012 2:21 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-08-23 21:12, Noel Jones skrev:
>
>> If you use amavisd-new (+ dspam, + whatever else) as an
>> smtpd_proxy_filter, it's possible to save rejected mail in the
>> quarantine for retraining.
>
> how does recipients train in this setup ?
The reg
Den 2012-08-23 21:12, Noel Jones skrev:
If you use amavisd-new (+ dspam, + whatever else) as an
smtpd_proxy_filter, it's possible to save rejected mail in the
quarantine for retraining.
how does recipients train in this setup ?
and what about german law on this ?, one must only accept or reje
would people be so gently and REMOVE [SPAM]-prefix
if replying to mailing-lists - any user of a barracuda
appliance with local rules in their client get the messages in
their junk-folder
proper configured mail-clients remove it automatically
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 8/23/2012 1:52 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-08-22 18:57, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
>
>>> Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
>>> proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
>>> dspam.
>> Yeah, like amavisd
>
> and ask Mark for better
Den 2012-08-22 18:57, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
dspam.
Yeah, like amavisd
and ask Mark for better dspam support ?, problem is not dspam but the
fact to learn
Den 2012-08-22 18:51, Daniele Nicolodi skrev:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
dspam.
for spam reject its posssible to use dspam, but what about ham that
gets rejected ?
you cant relearn i
Den 2012-08-21 21:23, Jamie Paul Griffin skrev:
http://cowboyrushforth.com/2008-10-31/dspam_experiement
If you use the Sane Security Signatures with clamav that makes a big
difference.
if one start just allowing mails from trusted mail sources then it
works better, using 3rd party signatur
* Daniele Nicolodi :
> Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
> proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates dspam.
Yeah, like amavisd
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campu
On 22/08/2012 18:47, Terry Barnum wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
>>> advice I finally ended up with:
>>>
>>> OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undead
On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
>> Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
>> advice I finally ended up with:
>>
>> OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
>> includes greylisting+gre
[ Daniele Nicolodi wrote on Tue 21.Aug'12 at 23:22:20 +0200 ]
> On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
> > Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
> > advice I finally ended up with:
> >
> > OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
> > includes gr
On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
> Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
> advice I finally ended up with:
>
> OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
> includes greylisting+greytrapping) + dspam: https://gist.github.com/3417519
>
> Feedb
[ Mikkel Bang wrote on Tue 21.Aug'12 at 21:06:20 +0200 ]
> Thanks for the reply Francis!
>
> Here on OpenBSD, spamd takes care of the greylisting so I'm all set there.
>
> After much going back and forth regarding amavisd-new+spamassassin, I came
> to the conclusion that it was an overly complex
Thanks for the reply Francis!
Here on OpenBSD, spamd takes care of the greylisting so I'm all set there.
After much going back and forth regarding amavisd-new+spamassassin, I came
to the conclusion that it was an overly complex solution, written in a
dying language, that during the course of time
I use postfix with postscreen, spamhaus and other RBLs, nolist greylisting,
sqlgrey greylisting, amavisd-new (which calls in spamassassin), and clamav.
Freshclam and sa-update are run daily by cron.
Here are my stats today on the primary MX (actually secondary due to nolist)
Aug 21
Connect: 1384
2012/8/15 Peter N. M. Hansteen
>
> I beg to differ. spamd(8) in any configuration is a lot more lightweight
> than
> content filtering. You most likely will need content filtering in addition
> to greylisting+greytrapping, but stopping them earlier is a real plus.
> See eg http://undeadly.org/cgi
IMO, greylisting via postgrey has had a really positive impact for reducing
inbound spam. The delay characteristics are configurable and the impact to
end-users can be minimized.
Also, IMO, configuring "the ultimate email server" is more about the needs of
your network and/or application. Y
Hi Mikkel,
IMO Postgrey and Postscreen are quite similar. I believe you should go
for one of them in order to have one more layer of functionality against
spammers in your server.
Look carefully to the documentation for Postscreen, specially the
"Introduction" and "The basic idea behind postscree
On 15/08/2012 16:09, andr...@east.nilpan.se wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>
>> On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
>>> Dropped:
>>> - postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
>>> but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Dropped:
- postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my setup
Did you really read the documentation? What is not clear in thi
Zitat von Mikkel Bang :
I'm trying to configure "the ultimate email server" for this webapp that
needs to send and receive / forward emails to and from thousands of users.
But with so many people recommending so many different tools, it gets hard
to come to a conclusion. Looks like I'm finally
On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
> Dropped:
> - postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
> but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my setup
Did you really read the documentation? What is not clear in this section
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_RE
45 matches
Mail list logo
