On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Terry Carmen wrote:
>
>>
>> > Hi list
>> >
>> > Im with the next problem: I have and old server and Im in process to
>> migrate
>> > to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in the server
>&
old server and Im in process to
> migrate
> > to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in the server
> than
> > saturate it. For the age of the server and because in two weeks is
> replaced
> > I can't install any program like spamity or simila
m in process to
migrate to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in
the server than saturate it. For the age of the server and because
in two weeks is replaced I can't install any program like spamity or
similar to help to detect spam attacks, but I need to understand th
deconya:
> Hi list
>
> Im with the next problem: I have and old server and Im in process to migrate
> to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in the server than
> saturate it. For the age of the server and because in two weeks is replaced
> I can't i
> Hi list
>
> Im with the next problem: I have and old server and Im in process to migrate
to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in the server than
saturate it. For the age of the server and because in two weeks is replaced
I can't install any program like spam
Hi list
Im with the next problem: I have and old server and Im in process to migrate
to a better machine, but actually Im having spam attacks in the server than
saturate it. For the age of the server and because in two weeks is replaced
I can't install any program like spamity or similar to
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> W dniu 2009-03-05 06:30, Mihira Fernando pisze:
>> Have you ever tried sending an e-greeting to someone via
>> 123greeting.com or
>> some other similar site ?
>>
> You're definitely right - I didn't use that one before.
> Look what I get in logs:
> Mar 5 09:41:50 lola
W dniu 2009-03-05 06:30, Mihira Fernando pisze:
Have you ever tried sending an e-greeting to someone via 123greeting.com or
some other similar site ?
You're definitely right - I didn't use that one before.
Look what I get in logs:
Mar 5 09:41:50 lola postfix/smtpd[20278]: warning: 72.233.20
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 20:18:18 Paweł Leśniak wrote:
[snip]
> Sure. I'm sending myself emails sometime. But I'm using server which is
> permitted to send with address from my domain. So that's surely not 100%
> spam when sender eq recipient. But then we come to definition of spam. It's
in simp
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Lesniak
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 7:32 PM
To: postfix users list
Subject: Re: Spam attacks
W dniu 2009-03-03 23:34, MacShane, Tracy pisze
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> W dniu 2009-03-03 18:41, Noel Jones pisze:
>> Some legit "reminder" type services, some meeting notifications, and
>> other legit mail might arrive with you as the sender. Maybe not best
>> practices, but it's legit mail and such a policy will reject it.
> Why would someo
On 3/4/2009, PaweB Le[niak (warl...@lesniakowie.com) wrote:
Looking at first email in thread carefully you'd see that Dave has
(or had) problem with spam sent from j...@foo.com to j...@foo.com. And
that's the case where authentication will do the job perfectly - IMHO
way better then zen.
On 3/4/2009, PaweB Le[niak (warl...@lesniakowie.com) wrote:
> Looking at first email in thread carefully you'd see that Dave has
> (or had) problem with spam sent from j...@foo.com to j...@foo.com. And
> that's the case where authentication will do the job perfectly - IMHO
> way better then zen.
On Wed March 4 2009 08:48:18 Paweł Leśniak wrote:
But then we come to definition of spam. It's in simple words unwanted
message.
Too simple, and not correct. The true definition of spam is UBE:
unsolicited bulk email. Most spammers put out messages that a tiny
percentage of recipient
On Wed March 4 2009 08:48:18 Paweł Leśniak wrote:
> But then we come to definition of spam. It's in simple words unwanted
> message.
Too simple, and not correct. The true definition of spam is UBE:
unsolicited bulk email. Most spammers put out messages that a tiny
percentage of recipients want t
Paweł Leśniak wrote:
I think that situations pointed by you are rather rare.
I see them often enough here that I can't reject based solely
on this criteria, but I do add a couple spamassassin points.
If it's rare at your site, lucky you.
I don't know of
any, so I'm fine with rejecting 0 le
I can state with authority that mail with sender==recipient is not
universally 100% spam, and such a policy would likely have a much
higher false positive rate than zen. You can argue it's a
misconfiguration of the sender, but a mail admin's job is to receive
legit mail. but you're welcome to
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Paweł Leśniak
> I cant's see any risk anyways, not just in place. And it's possible that
> zen BL will stop more "legit" mails (depends on what one means by "legit
> mail", maybe there are people who read those "I'll give you $1billion"
> mails). If I'
Hi all
Just to clarify some points
They are running an IMAP server with SASL login for remote users
IMAP let's you get mail from your account. So it's really not related to
your problem.
You'd have to use SMTP authentication so when one wants to send mail
from u...@example.com to anotheru..
W dniu 2009-03-03 18:41, Noel Jones pisze:
Some legit "reminder" type services, some meeting notifications, and
other legit mail might arrive with you as the sender. Maybe not best
practices, but it's legit mail and such a policy will reject it.
Why would someone want to fake sender address? Is
Subject: Re: Spam attacks
W dniu 2009-03-03 23:34, MacShane, Tracy pisze:
We have a very clear policy that users are only permitted to relay mail
from our networks. If they are sending from home, they use webmail.
We've had one or two instances where external organisations have used
some
W dniu 2009-03-03 23:34, MacShane, Tracy pisze:
We have a very clear policy that users are only permitted to relay mail
from our networks. If they are sending from home, they use webmail.
We've had one or two instances where external organisations have used
some kind of auto-reply mechanism whic
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Lesniak
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 4:19 AM
> To: postfix users list
> Subject: Re: Spam attacks
>
> W dniu 2009-03-03 17:46, Noel Jone
Paweł Leśniak wrote:
W dniu 2009-03-03 17:46, Noel Jones pisze:
Some people reject their own domain from outside, unauthenticated
clients, but this will certainly reject some amount of legit mail.
Could you write a little bit how is it possible to reject legit mail by
rejecting unauthenticate
Paweł Leśniak wrote:
> W dniu 2009-03-03 17:46, Noel Jones pisze:
>> Some people reject their own domain from outside, unauthenticated
>> clients, but this will certainly reject some amount of legit mail.
>
> Could you write a little bit how is it possible to reject legit mail by
> rejecting unaut
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Is there anyway of stopping the from "j...@foo.com" to "j...@foo.com" spam
> attacks?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
Well. If you are delivering via procmail, you can have a procmail rule
like this one (untested, and posibly
W dniu 2009-03-03 17:46, Noel Jones pisze:
Some people reject their own domain from outside, unauthenticated
clients, but this will certainly reject some amount of legit mail.
Could you write a little bit how is it possible to reject legit mail by
rejecting unauthenticated clients when all use
Dave Johnson wrote:
Hi all
Is there anyway of stopping the from "j...@foo.com"
<mailto:from...@foo.com> to "j...@foo.com" spam attacks?
Regards
If you're not using zen.spamhaus.org already, you should
start. If your site is too large to qualify for their f
W dniu 2009-03-03 08:25, Dave Johnson pisze:
Hi all
Is there anyway of stopping the from "j...@foo.com"
<mailto:from...@foo.com> to "j...@foo.com" spam attacks?
Hi
Without knowing your config it's hard to say what are you already doing.
Are you using SASL
Hi all
Is there anyway of stopping the from "j...@foo.com" to "j...@foo.com" spam
attacks?
Regards
30 matches
Mail list logo
