Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-15 Thread Kouhei Sutou
Hi, In <003D9CFDC4BC4D809B6802958A7E1EC7@vxcxc6cd28d6a9> "selective greylisting with a long delay" on Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:33:22 -0400, "pf at alt-ctrl-del.org" wrote: > Has anyone implemented or experimented with selectively > greylisting specific networks, with a long delay? Let's say > 4 h

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-12 Thread Jerry
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:54:13 -0400 Kris Deugau articulated: > Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Jerry put forth on 4/11/2011 4:39 PM: > >> Stan Hoeppner articulated: > >>> Why bother with this complex greylisting setup? Simply hammer > >>> the big blocks with a CIDR entry and whitelist individual IPs in

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-12 Thread Kris Deugau
Stan Hoeppner wrote: Jerry put forth on 4/11/2011 4:39 PM: Stan Hoeppner articulated: Why bother with this complex greylisting setup? Simply hammer the big blocks with a CIDR entry and whitelist individual IPs in the range from which you need legit mail. If such IPs are used to send both sno

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-12 Thread Noel Jones
On 4/12/2011 3:19 AM, Bernhard Rohrer wrote: My first port of call here would be to enable features like - DKIM - SPF - reverse DNS lookup for the connecting host, where several things can be done: Nope. This class of spammers carefully follow the RFCs and use SPF and DKIM. - match con

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-12 Thread Bernhard Rohrer
My first port of call here would be to enable features like - DKIM - SPF - reverse DNS lookup for the connecting host, where several things can be done: - match connecting IP to hostname in helo or mail from - match connecting ip to claimed sending domain in helo or mail from (check MX and A)

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-12 Thread Stan Hoeppner
pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/11/2011 7:32 PM: > Just because most of the emails are spam, doesn't mean that most of > their customers are spammers. After all, the spammers are sending a lot > more mail than legit sites do. > > If the ISP has multiple /15's and /16's, I think that blockin

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread pf at alt-ctrl-del.org
"Stan Hoeppner" Monday, April 11, 2011 4:43 PM pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM: My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick these networks (and only these networks) over to a greylist policy that delays these emails for 4+ hours. By then, most of the b

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Wietse Venema put forth on 4/11/2011 6:07 PM: > Stan Hoeppner: >> Have you heard of a case of an SMTP sender suing an SMTP receiver for >> message rejection, and winning the case? > > http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/statement.lasso?ref=3 > > They sued, and the US judge awarded them US$11.7 m

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Daniel Bromberg
On 4/11/2011 7:07 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Stan Hoeppner: Have you heard of a case of an SMTP sender suing an SMTP receiver for message rejection, and winning the case? http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/statement.lasso?ref=3 They sued, and the US judge awarded them US$11.7 million for damag

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Wietse Venema
Stan Hoeppner: > Have you heard of a case of an SMTP sender suing an SMTP receiver for > message rejection, and winning the case? http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/statement.lasso?ref=3 They sued, and the US judge awarded them US$11.7 million for damages. Wietse

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Jerry put forth on 4/11/2011 4:39 PM: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:09 -0500 > Stan Hoeppner articulated: > >> pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM: >> >>> My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick >>> these networks (and only these networks) over to a greyli

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread John Peach
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:39:43 -0400 Jerry wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:09 -0500 > Stan Hoeppner articulated: > > > pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM: > > > > > My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick > > > these networks (and only these network

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Jerry
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:09 -0500 Stan Hoeppner articulated: > pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM: > > > My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick > > these networks (and only these networks) over to a greylist policy > > that delays these emails for 4+

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread Stan Hoeppner
pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM: > My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick these > networks (and only these networks) over to a greylist policy that delays > these emails for 4+ hours. By then, most of the bad IPs would be listed > in one or more RBL

Re: selective greylisting with a long delay

2011-04-11 Thread lst_hoe02
Zitat von "pf at alt-ctrl-del.org" : Has anyone implemented or experimented with selectively greylisting specific networks, with a long delay? Let's say 4 hours... If so, what are your results? Background: 1. Greylisting seems to have lost much of its value, and I stopped using it about a y