e second one to manually block or whitelist
certain Domains, IPs and Name Servers (mostly private).
-Original Message-
From: Terry Barnum [mailto:te...@dop.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:08 PM
To: Marius Gologan
Cc: postfix users
Subject: Re: spam fighting
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:33
th 2 GB of RAM can easily handle 10k-15k messages a
> day.
Good info to hear.
Thanks,
-Terry
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Barnum [mailto:te...@dop.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:04 PM
> To: Marius Gologan
> Cc: postfix users
> Subject: Re: spam fighting
>
>
nstant DNS DDoS
attack from those IP pools.
-Original Message-
From: Marius Gologan [mailto:marius.golo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:34 PM
To: 'Terry Barnum'
Cc: 'postfix users'
Subject: RE: spam fighting
Shared DNS as Google's 8.8.8.8 is not acce
n easily handle 10k-15k messages a
day.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Barnum [mailto:te...@dop.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:04 PM
To: Marius Gologan
Cc: postfix users
Subject: Re: spam fighting
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Marius Gologan
wrote:
>
> Hi Terry,
>
&
ird feeders, pharmacies. More pointers (favorite postfix techniques and/or
> add-ons, sites to read, etc.) from those who've been successful in reducing
> spam load are greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> -Terry
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: owner-postfix-u
lf Of Terry Barnum
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:15 AM
> To: postfix users
> Subject: spam fighting
>
> We've been using postscreen and dspam for quite some time but in the past
> couple months more spam is making it through. I realize there's no
> one-size-fits
esday, April 28, 2015 1:15 AM
To: postfix users
Subject: spam fighting
We've been using postscreen and dspam for quite some time but in the past
couple months more spam is making it through. I realize there's no
one-size-fits-all approach but because dspam isn't actively develope
We've been using postscreen and dspam for quite some time but in the past
couple months more spam is making it through. I realize there's no
one-size-fits-all approach but because dspam isn't actively developed anymore
I've started looking around and am curious what others are using. Is
amavisd
Voytek Eymont wrote:
On Sat, October 4, 2008 1:03 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g.
SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe
for smtp rejection :)
thanks, Ralf
(after all, it was your suggestion from
On Sat, October 4, 2008 1:03 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g.
> SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe
> for smtp rejection :)
thanks, Ralf
(after all, it was your suggestion from
http://www.rfc-ig
Joey wrote:
* Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use.
mouss, thanks
so, should be like this ?
smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use.
mouss, thanks
so, should be like this ?
smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of
* Joey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g.
> > SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe
> > for smtp rejection :)
>
> We had a lot of problems when we used rfc-ignorant.org because of Exchange
> servers not be
>
> * Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use.
> >
> >
> > mouss, thanks
> >
> > so, should be like this ?
> >
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
>
> That's STILL smtp rejection - he was
* Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use.
>
>
> mouss, thanks
>
> so, should be like this ?
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it f
On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:36 pm, mouss wrote:
> Voytek Eymont wrote:
> rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use.
mouss, thanks
so, should be like this ?
smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
>> blocked using dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net (to
Voytek Eymont wrote:
On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:07 pm, Udo Rader wrote:
Joey schrieb:
I use in this order the following:
we use these:
blocked using bl.spamcop.net (total: 491)
blocked using combined.njabl.org (total: 77)
blocked using dsn.rfc-ignorant.org (total: 368)
rfci i
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:32:16AM -0400, Joey wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I just updated my rbl list since dsbl.org is out and wanted to see if anyone
> has any new lists that are conservative enough to use in the war against
> spam.
>
Try barracuda, read the whole thread:
http://marc.info/
On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:07 pm, Udo Rader wrote:
> Joey schrieb:
>
>> I use in this order the following:
we use these:
blocked using bl.spamcop.net (total: 491)
blocked using combined.njabl.org (total: 77)
blocked using dsn.rfc-ignorant.org (total: 368)
blocked using dul.dnsbl
Joey schrieb:
I use in this order the following:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
for us bl.spamcop.net has produced quite a lot false positives in the
past, that's why we only use it for scoring, but things may have changed.
re
Hello All,
I just updated my rbl list since dsbl.org is out and wanted to see if anyone
has any new lists that are conservative enough to use in the war against
spam.
I use in this order the following:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
21 matches
Mail list logo
