Re: spam issues

2012-01-17 Thread /dev/rob0
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 07:49:49PM -0600, Al Zick wrote: > On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:52 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: > >On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote: > >>On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote: > >>>Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps > >

Re: spam issues

2012-01-17 Thread Ansgar Wiechers
On 2012-01-15 Al Zick wrote: > Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including > some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do > you do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are > being blocked? I guess that you can use them if you don't

Re: spam issues

2012-01-16 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 1/16/2012 7:15 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2012-01-15 8:49 PM, Al Zick wrote: >> Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including >> some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do you >> do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are

Re: spam issues

2012-01-16 Thread Charles Marcus
On 2012-01-15 8:49 PM, Al Zick wrote: Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do you do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are being blocked? Don't use the list causing them to b

Re: spam issues

2012-01-15 Thread Wietse Venema
Al Zick: > I am not trying to start a flame war with anyone. Obviously you > understand what effective spam filtering should look like. > > Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including > some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do > you do when

Re: spam issues

2012-01-15 Thread Al Zick
Hi, On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:52 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote: On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote: Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps ^ greylisting and you upd

Re: spam issues

2012-01-13 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 1/13/2012 4:57 PM, Al Zick wrote: > If I don't whitelist these servers, then if it bounces an email that has > been sent because of a .forward, then the server with the .forward tries > to redeliver the email for something like 5 days to my server. Is there > another solution to this? I don't h

Re: spam issues

2012-01-13 Thread /dev/rob0
On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote: > On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote: > > Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps ^ > > greylisting and you update Spamassassin rules regularly... > > you shoul

Re: spam issues

2012-01-13 Thread Al Zick
Hi, On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote: Hi, For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless, creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to P

Re: spam issues

2012-01-12 Thread Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote: Hi, For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless, creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients fix

Re: spam issues

2012-01-11 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote: > Hi, > > For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless, > creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to > Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients > fixed this problem. Still we seem to be

Re: spam issues

2012-01-11 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 12.01.2012 06:15, schrieb Al Zick: > Hi, > > For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless, > creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to > Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients > fixed this problem. Still we seem to be