John Heim wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "postfix users list"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
Ronald F. Guilm
- Original Message -
From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "postfix users list"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
cake
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> This situation leaves me, at least, wondering if we cannot have our
> cake and eat it to. My belief is that by employing the marvelous
> flexibility of Postfix there must be a way to _both_ accept all incoming
> messages bound for valid local recipient addresses _and_ also r
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
cake and eat it to. My belief is that by employing the marvelous
flexibility of Postfix there must be a way to _both_ accept all incoming
messages bound for valid local recipient addresses _and_ also reject
some subset of those messages just after the end of the DATA p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that false positives are bad... but hopefully you're
>rejecting mail and not discarding it. When (legit) mail is
>rejected, the sender is notified and you'll hear about it...
In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately
John Heim wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In setting up the pre-queue spam filter, I followed the instructions
here:
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html
What are you using as your smtpd_proxy_filter? Seems it could do
better...
Spampd
- Original Message -
From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In setting up the pre-queue spam filter, I followed the instructions
here:
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html
What are you using as your smtpd_proxy_filter? Seems it could do better...
Spampd and spamassassin.
John Heim wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Jorey Bump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't rely solely on SpamAssassin. There are other techniques that are
less expensive and can eliminate obvious spam with virtually no false
positives (and others that may have an acceptable level of false
John Heim wrote, at 08/14/2008 02:09 PM:
postconf on the mta:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_dom
ain, permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_sender_access
hash:/etc
/postfix/access, permit
Try this:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
- Original Message -
From: "Jorey Bump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't rely solely on SpamAssassin. There are other techniques that are
less expensive and can eliminate obvious spam with virtually no false
positives (and others that may have an acceptable level of false
positives, though
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Marcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
On 8/14/2008, John Heim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Exactly!
John Heim wrote, at 08/14/2008 12:43 PM:
Exactly! Except that the reason our anti-spam measures are ineffective
is that the addresses are aliased. We have 2 MTAs running postfix with
pre-queue spam filters and then a delivery machine running postfix,
spamassassin, & dovecot. The pre-queue spa
On 8/14/2008, John Heim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Exactly! Except that the reason our anti-spam measures are
> ineffective is that the addresses are aliased.
?? What difference does an alias make? Either a recipient is valid or not...
> We have 2 MTAs running postfix with pre-queue spam filter
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Marcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Postfix users"
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
On 8/14/2008 11:54 AM, John Heim wrote:
G
John Heim wrote:
I'm running a system with about 300 users. I run pflogsumm every night
to generate mail log stats. The bounce detail lists 300 - 400 servers
rejecting mail because the user is unknown. The vast majority of servers
has 1 or 2 such rejections. This puzzles me. My users can't
On 8/14/2008 11:54 AM, John Heim wrote:
> Get it? Somebody tries to spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] and user12 has his
> mail forwarded to his gmail account. Gmail detects the spam, rejects the
> message and my mta then generates a bounce back to the original forged
> from address.
>
> I don't see anything
I'm running a system with about 300 users. I run pflogsumm every night to
generate mail log stats. The bounce detail lists 300 - 400 servers rejecting
mail because the user is unknown. The vast majority of servers has 1 or 2
such rejections. This puzzles me. My users can't possibly be sendin
17 matches
Mail list logo
