Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

On 17 Jan 2018 12:24 p.m., "Dominic Raferd" wrote: > I started a conversation with my isp and ask them whole subnet's status and > spammers in the network. Talos gave enough details about ip address in my > subnet. They do not believe that Microsoft categorize subnets. Actually, > their answer wa

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

> I started a conversation with my isp and ask them whole subnet's status and > spammers in the network. Talos gave enough details about ip address in my > subnet. They do not believe that Microsoft categorize subnets. Actually, > their answer was quite funny. They said, "why ms want to do that ?"

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

On 16 Jan 2018 3:12 p.m., "jin&hitman&Barracuda" wrote: On 16 Jan 2018 2:34 p.m., "Dominic Raferd" wrote: Please do not top-post on this mailing list... On 16 January 2018 at 11:20, jin&hitman&Barracuda wrote: > > I did not realize that nonexist host names. I believe they basically ignore

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

On 16 Jan 2018 2:34 p.m., "Dominic Raferd" wrote: Please do not top-post on this mailing list... On 16 January 2018 at 11:20, jin&hitman&Barracuda wrote: > > I did not realize that nonexist host names. I believe they basically ignore faults when they produce them but they keep pushing us to fol

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

I've performed same situation. Actually they responded me with "Sorry, your ip do not qualify for mitigation." It doesn't help me either. On 16 Jan 2018 2:23 p.m., "Matthew Broadhead" < matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote: > i am also having problems delivering to microsoft domains since sund

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

Please do not top-post on this mailing list... On 16 January 2018 at 11:20, jin&hitman&Barracuda wrote: > > I did not realize that nonexist host names. I believe they basically ignore > faults when they produce them but they keep pushing us to follow their > requirements. > > > On 16 Jan 2018 1

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

i am also having problems delivering to microsoft domains since sunday.  i am in their SDNS program and it doesn't show our domain as being blacklisted. i contacted their engineers via https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/getsupport?oaspworkflow=start_1.0.0.0&wfname=capsub&productkey=edfsmsbl3&lo

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

I did not realize that nonexist host names. I believe they basically ignore faults when they produce them but they keep pushing us to follow their requirements. On 16 Jan 2018 1:59 p.m., "Jim Reid" wrote: > On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:49, jin&hitman&Barracuda wrote: > > We are having difficulties w

Re: Hotmail spam prevention mech.

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:49, jin&hitman&Barracuda wrote: > > We are having difficulties while delivering mails to Microsoft's domains like > hotmail and outlook. They appear to have a DNS problem which is causing outbound mail to fail. Their SMTP servers are using non-existent hostnames when

Hotmail spam prevention mech.

Hi This isn't related directly postfix but i could not find true platform to ask. I believe your knowledge is far better than mine and i need little help. We are having difficulties while delivering mails to Microsoft's domains like hotmail and outlook. I've checked over and over again my settings

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:49:02PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote: > > Even something as simple as "DKIM will not check anything past the > > first signature delimiter" would have solved all the problems, except > > that the "problem" was a religious one, not a technical one. > > Religious. Oh my. A

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 31.08.2017 19:15, @lbutlr wrote: > > Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. > > Not on a general list that is not used by computer nerds it does not. I still firmly believe it does, because the body (content) is written by list members while the header (meta) is desig

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 06:12, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: > >> There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should >> be smart enough to figure this out. > > I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta > information belongs

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 30.08.2017 03:24, Richard Damon wrote: > I suggest you then talk the the legislators in the jurisdictions that > MANDATE that many mailing list have clearly visible {munged, see P.S.} > instructions. Electronic mailing lists with a global reach which folks like myself have been using since the

Re: [SPAM?] Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/29/17 8:12 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message hea

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 15:43, Norton Allen wrote: > The problem with sticking all the list meta-information in the headers > is that most users have no idea how to access email headers or parse > them for the salient information. I see it as a MUA's task to present meta information in a palatable way, but

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Norton Allen skrev den 2017-08-29 15:43: The problem with sticking all the list meta-information in the headers is that most users have no idea how to access email headers or parse them for the salient information. squirrelmail have plugin for list-id headers, that plugin is not in roundcube

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Philip Paeps skrev den 2017-08-29 15:18: Scribbling in the body also breaks PGP signatures. At least that's trivially worked around by adding the list footer in a separate MIME part as many lists do. But DKIM still doesn't like that. imho opendkim can limit body content signing (body length)

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/29/2017 8:12 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. DKIM-signed messages are letters, not postcards, and no non-totalitarian postal service would dare open your letter and scri

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 2017-08-29 14:12:29 (+0200), Ralph Seichter wrote: On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into th

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hah, Thanks for the pointers, especially Ralph! > I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta > information belongs into the message headers, not the body. I've been thinking along those lines too... there could easily be new header definitions for "Suggested Tagging" an

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: > There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should > be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. DKIM-signed messages

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 06:00, Benny Pedersen wrote: > let me come with a joke now, if we stop verifying dkim to the first mail > signature and just say all under that sig is mailllist forged content we did > not open a can of worms to solve afterwards ? > > i think people need to rethink more why b

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

@lbutlr skrev den 2017-08-29 13:42: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. its solved in arc ? i still dont know if arc will replace dmarc or not, if maillists stop breaking dkim, then dmarc and arc is not needed at all to

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 04:54, Ralph Seichter wrote: > If you need an example (to name but one), see the Roundcube Users > mailing list, which still adds a footer to the message bodies, thus > breaking DKIM. Very easily prevented by flipping a configuration switch, > alas the list admins don't seem to

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Rick van Rein: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ] > Hi, > > > i noted that it's possible to get dmarc fail on postfix maillist > > > > its spf none, dkim none, dmarc fail, in my tests, arc is not tested or > > planned to be in use > > > I tested your two emails for DKIM, and both failed for me.

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 09:21, Rick van Rein wrote: > [...] DKIM, SPF and DMARC are of interest to any mail flow. They sure are. If you browse through mailing list archives of years gone by, you can find my own messages about list X or Y breaking DKIM, SPF or both. Also, people have been passionate about R

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hi, > i noted that it's possible to get dmarc fail on postfix maillist > > its spf none, dkim none, dmarc fail, in my tests, arc is not tested or > planned to be in use I tested your two emails for DKIM, and both failed for me. The ones by Noel and Ralph did get through. I used dkimverify.py fr

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hello, I should not have used this list as an example :) because it undermined my point. > messages on the Postfix mailing list > usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're barking > up the wrong tree here. ;-) My interest in spam is due to the apparent move that email is sl

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/28/2017 3:18 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: >> usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're >> barking >> up the wrong tree here. ;-) > > and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks Assuming your users neither use Reply-To:

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're barking up the wrong tree here. ;-) and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks since its not default dkim signed its not safe to remove in header_checks, if remotes sign it in

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 28.08.17 17:42, Rick van Rein wrote: > I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been > wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by > using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. The Postfix mailing list is "friendly" already. It does not break DKIM s

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Rick van Rein skrev den 2017-08-28 19:09: Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. i noted that it's

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. -Rick

Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hi, I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. These spam-fighting methods have the greatest difficulty with email forwarding and lists because: - changes to

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On 8/27/2013 5:01 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 08/25/2013 08:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote: >> Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts >> are listening. >> >> I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a >> list of IP ranges that (according to S

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On 08/25/2013 08:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote: Hi, Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts are listening. I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a list of IP ranges that (according to Spamhaus) shouldn't be sending e-mail at all. One p

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On Aug 26, 2013, at 06:20, pe...@ixp.jp wrote: > On Aug/25.20:11:49, Niclas Arndt wrote: >> Here are my questions: Is the iptables approach at all viable in the long >> run? Is there any non-commercial way to upload a text file containing >> spamming IP addresses and have it verified for correct

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On 25 Aug 2013, at 12:11 , Niclas Arndt wrote: > Here are my questions: Is the iptables approach at all viable in the long run? No. This is why RBLS use DNS, because DNS is cheap and it caches automatically. If you are blocking a few sites, (even a few thousand) that is one thing, but when yo

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On 8/25/2013 1:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts > are listening. > > I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed > a list of IP ranges that (according to Spamhaus) shouldn't be > sending e-mail at al

Re: iptables based spam prevention

On Aug 25, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote: > I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a list > of IP ranges that (according to Spamhaus) shouldn't be sending e-mail at all. > One problem is that this list tends to become quite long and another is that > I wou

iptables based spam prevention

Hi, Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts are listening. I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a list of IP ranges that (according to Spamhaus) shouldn't be sending e-mail at all. One problem is that this list tends to become quite

Re: Right way to evaluate a Outbound Spam prevention product

Abhijeet Rastogi: > Hi all, > > - Current'y, for outbound spam protection, I use combination of header > checks, rbls, a commercial product that works as a milter. > - Now, I need to evaluate another product which doesn't work as a milter & > I've to authenticate via SSL to their SMTP server and r

Re: Right way to evaluate a Outbound Spam prevention product

On 07/01/2013 07:24 PM, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote: Hi all, - Current'y, for outbound spam protection, I use combination of header checks, rbls, a commercial product that works as a milter. - Now, I need to evaluate another product which doesn't work as a milter & I've to authenticate via SSL to t

Right way to evaluate a Outbound Spam prevention product

Hi all, - Current'y, for outbound spam protection, I use combination of header checks, rbls, a commercial product that works as a milter. - Now, I need to evaluate another product which doesn't work as a milter & I've to authenticate via SSL to their SMTP server and relay all mails via them. The

Re: [OT] Spam Prevention

On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 16:52 +1000, Thomas wrote: > Hey, > > [..] > > Yes, I use that too - but I like a quick summary on demand. > See: > You can use the scripts _without_ logwatch and get an instant summary of > your mail.log. > > Cheers, > Thomas Indeed

Re: [OT] Spam Prevention

Hey, [..] Yes, I use that too - but I like a quick summary on demand. See: You can use the scripts _without_ logwatch and get an instant summary of your mail.log. Cheers, Thomas

Re: [OT] Spam Prevention

On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 08:29 +0200, Willy De la Court wrote: > On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:04:17 -0400, Jon wrote: > > Clunk Werclick wrote: > >> > >> > >> PRE DNSBL 321 > >> > >> NO PTR 201 > >>SPOOFING 120 > >>

[OT] Spam Prevention

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:04:17 -0400, Jon wrote: > Clunk Werclick wrote: >> >> >> PRE DNSBL 321 >> >> NO PTR 201 >>SPOOFING 120 >> RELAY ATTEMPTS0 >> BLOCKED OTHER0 >> WHITELISTED4

Re: Spam Prevention

On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 17:04 -0400, Jon wrote: > Clunk Werclick wrote: > > > > > > PRE DNSBL 321 > > > > NO PTR 201 > >SPOOFING 120 > > RELAY ATTEMPTS0 > > BLOCKED OTHER0 > > WHITELISTED

Re: Spam Prevention

t;> complaints >> so i'm sticking with just spamcop and spamhaus. > > I'm still figuring things out, and have not really went very deep into > spam prevention at this point. My question about the rbl rejects at the > smtp level is whether it's possible to o

Re: Spam Prevention

[SNIP] wow a lot of rbls. I used to use some of these but got a lot of complaints so i'm sticking with just spamcop and spamhaus. I'm still figuring things out, and have not really went very deep into spam prevention at this point. My question about the rbl rejects at the smtp level

Re: Spam Prevention

Clunk Werclick wrote: PRE DNSBL 321 NO PTR 201 SPOOFING 120 RELAY ATTEMPTS0 BLOCKED OTHER0 WHITELISTED4 BLOCKED DNSBL 287

Re: Spam Prevention

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:44:56 +0200, mouss wrote: > Willy De la Court a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> Just a question about spam prevention and resource optimalisation. >> >> What is the best way to go. I have this as spam prevention at the moment. >>

Re: Spam Prevention

Willy De la Court a écrit : > Hi all, > > Just a question about spam prevention and resource optimalisation. > > What is the best way to go. I have this as spam prevention at the moment. > > smtpd_helo_restrictions = >permit_mynetworks, >

Re: Spam Prevention

* Willy De la Court : > > reject_rbl_client no-more-funn.moensted.dk > > reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net > > reject_rbl_client dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net > > reject_rbl_client dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net > > reject_rbl_client dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net > > rejec

Re: Spam Prevention

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:24:17 +0100, Clunk Werclick wrote: > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:56 +0200, Willy De la Court wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Just a question about spam prevention and resource optimalisation. >> [SNIP] >> >> This mean that there are a numb

Re: Spam Prevention

On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:56 +0200, Willy De la Court wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a question about spam prevention and resource optimalisation. > > What is the best way to go. I have this as spam prevention at the moment. > > smtpd_helo_restrictions = &

Spam Prevention

Hi all, Just a question about spam prevention and resource optimalisation. What is the best way to go. I have this as spam prevention at the moment. smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_invalid_hostname, permit