On 01/03/18 05:09, J Doe wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:25 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
>> I can't think of a compelling reason either to enable VRFY or to disable
>> it. Disabling it stops people abusing it, but then they can just use
>> RCPT TO to get the same information in most cases.
Don't use SORBS.
Wietse
On 01/03/18 04:47, MRob wrote:
What other people do about this? Remove SORBS completely? Increase dnswl
socring? Reduce SORBS scoring?
I am using postwhite to generate cidr list from SPF records of known
senders and have them whitelisted in Postfix. It saves a lot of delays
for postfix check
I also use postwhite and similar whitelisting, but I also have
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
...
list.dnswl.org=127.0.[5;9].0*-2
--
-- Andreas
:-)
Hi,
I have been reading about the ESMTP CHUNKING extension (RFC 3030), after
noticing that both Hotmail and Gmail advertise it on EHLO.
I checked the Postfix man pages (man 5 postconf), as well as the Postfix
documentation at postfix.org [1] and can’t see any documentation related to it.
Som
On 2018-03-01 08:14, John Fawcett wrote:
On 01/03/18 05:09, J Doe wrote:
Hi John,
On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:25 PM, John Fawcett
wrote:
I can't think of a compelling reason either to enable VRFY or to
disable
it. Disabling it stops people abusing it, but then they can just use
RCPT TO to get the
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:42 PM, J Doe wrote:
>
> I have been reading about the ESMTP CHUNKING extension (RFC 3030), after
> noticing that both Hotmail and Gmail advertise it on EHLO.
>
> I checked the Postfix man pages (man 5 postconf), as well as the Postfix
> documentation at postfix.org [
J Doe:
> Hi,
>
> I have been reading about the ESMTP CHUNKING extension (RFC 3030),
> after noticing that both Hotmail and Gmail advertise it on EHLO.
>
> I checked the Postfix man pages (man 5 postconf), as well as the
> Postfix documentation at postfix.org [1] and can?t see any
> documentation re
On 2018-03-01 17:51, Andreas Schamanek wrote:
I also use postwhite and similar whitelisting, but I also have
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
...
list.dnswl.org=127.0.[5;9].0*-2
Good suggestions thank you everyone. Over the last 24hours I saw clients
SORBS listed:
** a few that were listed
Hi,
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, MRob wrote:
> Good suggestions thank you everyone. Over the last 24hours I saw clients
> SORBS listed:
>
> ** a few that were listed by other RBLs
> ** many that were senders I can't block or delay: facebook, google, etc
> ** one or two that looked like they co
On 1 March 2018 at 23:24, J Doe wrote:
> I know there are a number of lists of publicly available DNS BL’s but is
> there a list of BL’s that have a low false-positive history ? I’m aware that
> false positives do happen, but blacklisting Gmail seems to be avoidable.
For external rbls this is
On 2018-03-01 23:24, J Doe wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, MRob wrote:
Good suggestions thank you everyone. Over the last 24hours I saw
clients SORBS listed:
** a few that were listed by other RBLs
** many that were senders I can't block or delay: facebook, google,
etc
** one or tw
On 2018-03-02 07:24, Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 1 March 2018 at 23:24, J Doe wrote:
I know there are a number of lists of publicly available DNS BL’s but
is there a list of BL’s that have a low false-positive history ? I’m
aware that false positives do happen, but blacklisting Gmail seems to
13 matches
Mail list logo
