li...@sbt.net.au:
> : host target.tld[69.175.yyy.xxx]
> said: 550-Please turn on SMTP Authentication in your mail client, or
> login to the 550-IMAP/POP3 server before sending your message.
> geko.sbt.net.au 550-[180.235.131.4]:51667 is not permitted to relay
> through this server without 550
On Fri, October 11, 2013 10:31 pm, Wietse Venema wrote:
> What is the real server name?
> What is the real IP address?
Wietse,
thanks, from the log entry:
corporatechange.com.au
69.175.105.186
BUT, looking at recent log entries, mail seems now delivered, THOUGH, log
now show different IP for t
li...@sbt.net.au:
> On Fri, October 11, 2013 10:31 pm, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > What is the real server name?
> > What is the real IP address?
>
> Wietse,
>
> thanks, from the log entry:
>
> corporatechange.com.au
> 69.175.105.186
That IP address belongs to Singlehop.
> BUT, looking at rece
A recent postfix-users thread had comments (about Spamassassin) along the
lines of content inspection being evil by design. (Andreas and Stan)
In my mind content inspection would include anti-virus checking. Am I wrong?
I recognize postscreen as an effective defence. But there are other kinds
of
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:49:14AM -0600, Robert Lopez wrote:
> A recent postfix-users thread had comments (about Spamassassin) along the
> lines of content inspection being evil by design. (Andreas and Stan)
Participants in email discussions are always tempted to pontificate.
I would not take su
Zitat von Robert Lopez :
A recent postfix-users thread had comments (about Spamassassin) along the
lines of content inspection being evil by design. (Andreas and Stan)
In my mind content inspection would include anti-virus checking. Am I wrong?
At least my comment was in the context of spam,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:28:38PM +0200, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
> Even the human recipients sometimes have trouble to decide by content
> what is spam, so a automatic detection for such a diffuse target is
> doomed to fail.
This is plainly false. A filter does not have to detect all spam.
A
Daniele Nicolodi skrev den 2013-10-10 11:27:
I guess there is not much we can do about it, but I found it funny.
# local.cf
uridnsbl_skip_domain main.cf master.cf
I am more interested in the non-antivirus aspect of this content inspection
conversation.
So far the open-source ones out there (SpamAssasin, Spamprobe, DSpam) all
seem to be *kind of* OK at best but not nearly as effective as needed. I
train these tools with thousands upon thousands of messages a
Stan Hoeppner skrev den 2013-10-10 12:06:
I tend to agree. SA has a poor FP track record here.
sa 3.4 rc3 is just relaesed today but is the problem that sa uses
headers to make uribl check on ?
imho email headers should not trick urls testing, but none have fixed
it yet
John Levine skrev den 2013-10-10 21:17:
I suspect either it's just a mistake, or stuff that actually used
that
domain in a URL (as opposed to just a random string in a message)q
has
been really spammy.
I asked. There really is a domain master.cf, and it really is used
in URLs in a lot of spa
Hi
I am getting some problems with my postfix installation. I use
postfix+amavis+clamav+spamassassin in a Debian box.
I recently changed from sendmail+canit pro to this configuration.
The last error I get is something like:
Command time limit exceeded: "procmail -a "$EXTENSION"
12 matches
Mail list logo
