Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> mouss pisze:
>> João Miguel Neves a écrit :
>>
>>> OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
>> zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
>>
>> it would also be
Charles Marcus escreveu:
On 2/10/2009 1:49 PM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and
mouss pisze:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means your
On 2/10/2009 1:49 PM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
> Charles Marcus escreveu:
>> Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
>> it should be used for:
>>
>> http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
> OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> [snip]
>> let me fork a little: SAV on _header_ addresses is plain dumb:
>>
>> Dec 15 11:25:33 imlil postmx/smtpd[23878]: NOQUEUE: warn: RCPT from
>> chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de[217.146.130.193]: Transaction logged:
>> PTR=chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de; from=
>> to= proto=ESMTP helo
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
> OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
>
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means your GL
server need to re
mouss pisze:
no reason to overreact. I am not seeing SAV abuse (but I am seeing
backscatter and spam).
And I do under some circumstances. If I have SPF record, then I'm
helping the other side to check if mail with sender from my domain is
permitted or not. This means that sender already had
Jo??o Miguel Neves:
> Pawe? Le?niak escreveu:
> > Jo?o Miguel Neves pisze:
> >> Charles Marcus escreveu:
> >>> Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
> >>> it should be used for:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
> >> OK, I've finished r
mouss escreveu:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusio
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> [snip]
> Well, to be honest, I believe you did. If you will do many checks to the
> same server (have on mind large ISPs with many domains) with different
> emails, then probably your server will get blacklisted to send email
> from postmaster@ (at least). If you want expl
Paweł Leśniak escreveu:
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
> Charles Marcus escreveu:
>> Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
>> it should be used for:
>>
>> http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
> OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
> there's n
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that there's no reason not to
João Miguel Neves wrote:
The SAV check in postfix is done with the postmaster address by default.
Recent postfix (2.5 and newer) use $double_bounce_sender as
the default for address_verify_sender. This recipient is
always valid, never delivered.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#addres
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:05 +
Jo__o Miguel Neves wrote:
> Charles Marcus escreveu:
> > Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
> > it should be used for:
> >
> > http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
> OK, I've finished reading and analyzing tha
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
there's no reason not to use reject_unverified send
Juergen P. Meier:
> If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
> would *double*. I bet most heavy duty mailssystems don't scale double.
Go ahead and make my day. What is the basis for this claim?
Wietse
Charles Marcus escreveu:
> On 2/10/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
>
>> Right now, I'm preparing my top 10 domains used in spam and enabling SAV
>> for those.
>>
>
> Do you have their PERMISSION? If not, then DON'T... otherwise you risk
> getting BLACKLISTED. I kno
On 2/10/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
> Right now, I'm preparing my top 10 domains used in spam and enabling SAV
> for those.
Do you have their PERMISSION? If not, then DON'T... otherwise you risk
getting BLACKLISTED. I know that *I* will blackilist you for doing this,
Juergen P. Meier escreveu:
> SAV is a nice idea if run against a limited set of trusted domains (who's
> postmasters expclitly allow you to perform these Lookups), but it's not
> such a good idea in general.
> If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
> would *double*.
mouss escreveu:
> João Miguel Neves a écrit :
>
>> Charles Marcus escreveu:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:15:06AM +0100, Juergen P. Meier wrote:
> If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
> would *double*. I bet most heavy duty mailssystems don't scale double.
An address probe is MUCH cheaper to process than a message. Address
probe results are
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:36:25PM +, João Miguel Neves wrote:
> That would mean that the most useful use of SAV is negated. Or is there
> some prior arrangement that would allow me to do that to hotmail.com,
> gmail.com, yahoo.com*?
Some Mailproviders explicitly forbid the use of SAV against
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of mouss
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2009 8:39 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: reject_unverified_sender vs greylisting
>
> J
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
> Charles Marcus escreveu:
>> On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
>>
>>> I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
>>> but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
>>> verified uses
On 2/9/2009 9:36 AM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
> That would mean that the most useful use of SAV is negated. Or is there
> some prior arrangement that would allow me to do that to hotmail.com,
> gmail.com, yahoo.com*?
>
> I'm going to reduce the target domains, but is there a known agreement
> with
Charles Marcus escreveu:
> On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
>
>> I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
>> but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
>> verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
> I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
> but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
> verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
> replaced by
Jo?o Miguel Neves:
> Good evening,
>
> I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
> but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
> verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
> replaced by _AT_):
>
> Feb 8 07:56:49
Good evening,
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by _AT_):
Feb 8 07:56:49 atlas postfix/smtpd[25949]: NOQUEU
30 matches
Mail list logo
