>
>> I wouldn't wanna run my MTA via inet (or xinet). It would make more
>> sense to use the script to generate an iptables rule (or whatever
>> firewall you use).
>
>I'm not sure but can't sendmail be built with the tcpwrappers library so
>that the rejection happens during the connection before
Frank Pineau wrote:
> I wouldn't wanna run my MTA via inet (or xinet). It would
> make more sense to use the script to generate an iptables rule
> (or whatever firewall you use).
Again, this won't be useful because it does not generate a code
5xx error. Delivery of the mail will commence via you
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:07 PM -0500 Frank Pineau
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wouldn't wanna run my MTA via inet (or xinet). It would make more
sense to use the script to generate an iptables rule (or whatever
firewall you use).
I'm not sure but can't sendm
--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:07 PM -0500 Frank Pineau
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wouldn't wanna run my MTA via inet (or xinet). It would make more
sense to use the script to generate an iptables rule (or whatever
firewall you use).
I'm not sure but can't sendmail be built with the tcpwr
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:05:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>I've been toying with the idea for a while now that one could use
>a script similar to your excellent template to generate tcpwrappers
>entries to deny access in the same fashion. I do not know for sure if,
>given a choice between your suggest
>From: Kristian Koehntopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: [SAtalk] Who is spamming me - a bit of statistics
>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:45
Sent to fitug-debate (actually a nontechnical discussion list) and to
spamassassin-talk. Reply-To set to me personally.
Please adjust accordingly.
A corpus of spam, freshly collected:
$ ls -l ~/Mail/OLD
total 96988
-rw---1 kris kiel 1676771 2003-09-24 23:59 spammed-probable.01.
