On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 11:20 +0530, Anant Athavale wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> We have got one Ironport appliance for evaluation. It does reputation
> based filtering and drops lots of mails. But, we are still running
> Postfix with SpamAssassin for Anti-SPAM.
>
> Can Postfix can be integrated with
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:51 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Fri, June 12, 2009 12:12 pm, Steve said:
>
> > Is this right?
> >
> > "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> > header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
> > explicitly "OK" a clie
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:36 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 08:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> Mark Goodge:
> >>> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > Is this right?
> Yes
> > "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:47 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Mark Goodge :
>
> > I wouldn't call it a bug, since it's a feature that works as designed.
> > It is, however, a design choice that makes the feature less useful than
> > it otherwise could have been. But the point here is that content
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > > I only use it for stuff I absolutely don't want to see. Everything
> > > else gets handled by amavisd-new
> >
> > Which is flaky.
>
> N
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:40 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
> > * Steve :
> >
> > > /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic
> > > host in headers
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > In the logs; tripped on the header filter;
> > > Jun 12 11:01:58 mail4 post
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:50 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > > for ...
> > >
> > > You COULD solve this using:
> > >
> > > /^Received: from .*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic).*by / REJE
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:56 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > Yep, I had already done that. I tried the same thing to ab...@bt.com and
> > got the same result.
>
> Log entry for exactly that case?
>
reads 6 minute
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:36 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> > > body content, then I will fix it.
> > >
> > > All I ask for is that conditions be independentl
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:09 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:36 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Steve:
> > > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:52 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:40:27PM +0100, EASY
> steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
>
> > > Currently, as in, what is available now. I am not good
> > > at predicting the future.
> >
> > I
Probably a stupid question, but in practical terms is it possible to set
a header filter that will reject (or ideally defer) mail on time range?
For example during the hours of 00:00 -> 07:00.
I appreciate that the action will probably have to be 'reject' if it is
possible at all. Has anyone tried
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 01:58 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 15-Jun-2009, at 01:09, EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
> > Probably a stupid question, but in practical terms is it possible to
> > set
> > a header filter that will reject (or ideally defer) mail on time
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 15:04 +0200, polloxx wrote:
> Dear,
>
> we use blacklists as a first defense against spammers. We have hese
> lists at our postfix server:
>
> reject_rbl_client pbl.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
> reject_rbl_clie
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:13:21PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> >> # /etc/postfix/deferall.regexp
> >> /^/ DEFER Please try again during business hours
> >
> > The sender may get a better error message if you change the above to
> > /^/
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 10:35 +0200, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Hi all. I'm currently installing an smtp server on CentOS 5.3. Part of
> it is to use PostgreSQL backend to store virtual
> users/domains/aliases/passwords and of course to use it for SASL
> authentication. My /usr/lib/sasl2/smtpd.conf file:
Strike that, I've just noticed you crossposted to;
cyrus-s...@lists.andrew.cmu.edu,
Please ignore my stupid answer.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:16 +0100, Steve wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:58 +0200, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> > I corrected my mistake but it doesn't help. Any other ideas?
> What are the logs saying?
>
OFF LIST RESPONSE RECEIVED;
>/var/log/maillog:
>Jun 21 17:54:00 localhost postfix/smtpd[3091]:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:30 +1200, Justin C. Le Grice wrote:
> I'm sorry if this has already been done to death but I have searched
> high and low and have found scant discussion of this.
>
> I have been running Postfix for three weeks now and have reduced spam to
> just one or two messages gett
Joey wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I use a header_checks rule:
> >
> > /X-Spam-Level: \*{5,}/ REJECT
I wrote;
> I looked at this myself and asked 'hang on, what if I put a header
> filter in for X-Spam-Level'. I assumed (and that is all it was) that it
> was not fed into the content filter until *af
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:52 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * The Doctor :
>
> > I am contemplating howto use spamassassin effectively with postfix.
>
> Usually we use amavisd-new
Depends how often you want to keep restarting it. My time at Barracuda
taught me to steer clear of Amavis. 'Captain
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 11:08 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:52 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >> * The Doctor :
> >>
> >>> I am contemplating howto use spamassassin effectively with p
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:59 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Tue, June 23, 2009 18:46, Steve wrote:
> > I am assured that it is amavis-new :-) However, I've also been told the
> > lottery numbers over and over and I've not won a penny.
>
> well you need to play if you want to win, admins like me
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 11:50 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > Noel are you suggesting something might not work for me because I don't
> > know how to use it? Blasphemer!
>
> ;-)
> Next I'll ask you about painting my bike shed...
How dare you waste a shed on Bikes! I would fill i
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:07 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
>
> > smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions = my_networks
>
> smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions = $mynetworks
>
> > or
> >
> > smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions = my_networks, 1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8
>
> smtpd_client_event_lim
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 13:32 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:49:45PM +0100, Steve wrote:
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > I've been having some adventures with pre queue filtering with
> > SpamAssassin. This has introduced me to 'milters' which look really
> > interesting.
> >
>
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:02 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:54:37PM +0100, Steve wrote:
>
> > > > > > milter_default_action = tempfail
> > > > >
> > > > > "/private/samilte" != /home/mail/email/private/samilter
> > > > >
> > > > Postfix runs chrooted and the absolute w
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 17:28 +0200, Jiří Hlinka wrote:
> Hi,
> beside pflogsumm there is postfix-logwatch and amavis-logwatch:
> http://www.mikecappella.com/logwatch/
>
> Jiri
>
> Steve napsal(a):
> > Hi List,
> >
> > Before I make a feeble attempt to reinvent the wheel with a custom log
> > parse
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 08:20 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > I've read a few archive posts regarding the generation of bounce/ndr
> > messages and I can understand some of the cutting remarks such as
'don't
> > accept mail for invalid
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 11:32 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > Appreciate that - but to do this defeats the object of rejecting mail at
> > SMTP time (to avoid the bounce in the first place). What appears to
> > happening is the spambot
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 19:41 +0100, Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:29 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > > You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> > > switch of bounce/ndr messages.
> >
> > Y
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:56 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> >>> switch of bounce/ndr messages.
>
> >> Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
>
> > So does the notion of 'Before Queue
32 matches
Mail list logo
