On 1/4/2010 5:40 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
s25r rules and HELO response verification in main.cf, no spam has
siped through.
I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it.
BTW, is there a reason not block ema
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010, Steve wrote:
> > > > I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it.
> > > > BTW, is there a reason not block emails with incorrect HELO response?
> > > >
> > > None really, unless you need to accept mail from misconfigured
> > > servers. (We do.)
> > >
>
On Jan 4, 2010, at 16:08, Roman Gelfand wrote:
would have expected you to
say, a MTA which ignores basic basic configuration rules doesn't
deserve that it's mail should be accepted. In fact, this is the way I
feel about this.
Seconded.
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:08:39 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht -
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:40:29 -0500
>> Von: Roman Gelfand
>> An: Steve
>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>> Well, it
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:47:11 +0100
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> > Von:
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> Von: Kenneth Marshall
> An: Roman Gelfand
> CC: Steve , postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:40:29PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> > Well
t
> >> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100
> >> Von: mouss
> >> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> >> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> >
> >> Steve a ?crit :
> >> > Original-Nachricht
> >> >> D
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:40:29 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
> s25r rules and HELO res
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100
>> Von: mouss
>> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>> Steve a écrit :
>> > Orig
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Steve a écrit :
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
>
Steve a écrit :
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
>> Von: mouss
>> An: postfix users list
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>> Roman Gelfand a écrit :
>>> I am running postfix with anti spam filt
Roman Gelfand put forth on 1/3/2010 3:44 PM:
> I do train DSPAM and it works great. However, if I could block it
> before it gets to DSPAM, why not. I wouldn't feel bad if exchange
> told me this is perfectly good email. I am, looking, to do away with
> exchange server altogether.
Is managing
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix users list
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Roman Gelfand a écrit :
> > I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> > grossd, d
Roman Gelfand a écrit :
> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I am
> down to under 10 spams a day. Looking at my backend server which is
> exchange 2007, I find that all of the remaining spam messa
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:50:26 -0500
>> Von: Roman Gelfand
>> An: Steve
>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>>
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:02:32AM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
>> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
>> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I am
>> down to under 10 spams a day
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:50:26 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht -
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:02:32AM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I am
> down to under 10 spams a day. Looking at my backend server which is
> exchange 2007, I fi
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:02:32 -0500
>> Von: Roman Gelfand
>> An: postfix users list
>> Betreff: anti spam measures
>
>> I am running postfix with anti spam fil
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:02:32 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: postfix users list
> Betreff: anti spam measures
> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With thi
I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I am
down to under 10 spams a day. Looking at my backend server which is
exchange 2007, I find that all of the remaining spam messages have
spam confidence level o
22 matches
Mail list logo
