On 05.03.19 14:53, azusa_tar...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
Thank you for your reply!
Is there any plans to implement to "Expires" header as Postfix feature?
It is defined in RFC-5536
RFC-5536 is related to usenet news, not e-mail nor SMTP.
and sometimes others MTA has that feature.
got some more i
On 4 Mar 2019, at 02:55, Francesc Peñalvez wrote:
>
> Gmail has its ips stuck in almost all dnsbl spam and for that reason I do not
> receive any mail from gmail
Really? I've haven't found gmail servers to be in RBLs in a long time and
wouldn't use a RBL that listed gmail servers. What lists a
Wietse Venema wrote
> Postscreen does not cache FAIL results. That would be a stupid idea:
> the vast majority of IP addresses should not send email directly
> across the Internet, and spambots are short-lived.
Mayhem:
> The spam bots are not that short-lived though. I see the same IP's
> for week
On 5 Mar 2019, at 0:53, azusa_tar...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
Thank you for your reply!
Is there any plans to implement to "Expires" header as Postfix
feature?
It is defined in RFC-5536,
Which defines the format of *Netnews* (a.k.a. Usenet) messages, *NOT*
electronic mail messages. See
https://
The reason why I even suggested this is that I don't see a lot different IP
addresses. I figured the Postfix system wouldn't need to cache that many
"bad" IP addresses. You guys obviously see differently.
My mail logs rotate at 12AM every night, this is just one IP address in 8.5
hours :
$ more /
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 16:43, Mayhem wrote:
>
> The reason why I even suggested this is that I don't see a lot different IP
> addresses. I figured the Postfix system wouldn't need to cache that many
> "bad" IP addresses. You guys obviously see differently.
>
> My mail logs rotate at 12AM every nigh
Mayhem:
> That's just *one* IP address attempting to deliver spam 1000+ times. Isn't
> it a waste of the DNSBL resources telling me 1000 times in 8 hours that this
> IP address is up to no good?
You're probably looking at "HELO ylmf-pc" spambots. I find that
most of those clients are listed on a D
On 5 Mar 2019, at 11:37, Mayhem wrote:
The reason why I even suggested this is that I don't see a lot
different IP
addresses. I figured the Postfix system wouldn't need to cache that
many
"bad" IP addresses. You guys obviously see differently.
Random data point:
On my very tiny personal mai
Greetings, Mayhem!
> The reason why I even suggested this is that I don't see a lot different IP
> addresses. I figured the Postfix system wouldn't need to cache that many
> "bad" IP addresses. You guys obviously see differently.
> My mail logs rotate at 12AM every night, this is just one IP addr
Dominic Raferd wrote
> Do you have reason to think your system
> is suffering heavy load as a result, or are you concerned that some of
> the DNSBLs might block you for reaching commercial-use levels of
> lookups?
No, but the problem seems to be getting worse this past year, and I was
looking for
Mayhem:
> Dominic Raferd wrote
> > Do you have reason to think your system
> > is suffering heavy load as a result, or are you concerned that some of
> > the DNSBLs might block you for reaching commercial-use levels of
> > lookups?
>
> No, but the problem seems to be getting worse this past year,
On 05 Mar 2019, at 10:00, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> Fail2ban is (as you know) a way to tackle it.
At 1000 connections a day I don’t think fail2ban or sshguard or whatever is
going to save you anything at all.
Hundreds of thousands? Maybe?
--
Suddenly the animals look shiny and new
On 05 Mar 2019, at 13:50, Mayhem wrote:
> I also have nginx/apache and sql running on the same dedicated machine,
There will use much more of your system that all of postfix, including your
dovecot (or whatever), and the DNS lookups are a minuscule portion of what
postfix does.
My very low-sp
LuKreme wrote
> On 05 Mar 2019, at 10:00, Dominic Raferd <
> dominic@.co
> > wrote:
>> Fail2ban is (as you know) a way to tackle it.
> At 1000 connections a day I don’t think fail2ban or sshguard or whatever
> is going to save you anything at all.
Oh, I was getting a lot more than 1000 per day -
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 03:51, Mayhem wrote:
>
> LuKreme wrote
> > On 05 Mar 2019, at 10:00, Dominic Raferd <
>
> > dominic@.co
>
> > > wrote:
> >> Fail2ban is (as you know) a way to tackle it.
> > At 1000 connections a day I don’t think fail2ban or sshguard or whatever
> > is going to save you anyt
15 matches
Mail list logo
