On Fri, 5 May 2017 10:50:14 -0700
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I wouldn't worry too
> much about another module being loaded, even if I can't explain why it is.
Sometimes,if the driver is loaded during the initramfs, any changes
to config files in the regular filesystem won't take effect till
the ini
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:00 PM, David De Graaf wrote:
> 3 - I added Rami's kernel boot option. r8712u is still loaded.
I have, in the past, had an issue with using the Nvidia drivers because it
kept wanting to load nouveau. The advice I got was to use
"rdblacklist=nouveau" on the kernel boot l
x27;rmmod r8712u', verified it was gone, and ran dracut to
> recreate initramfs.
> After rebooting, r8712u was again loaded.
> 3 - I added Rami's kernel boot option. r8712u is still loaded.
> 4 - I examined dmesg carefully. r8712u gets loaded at the very end,
> after a lo
the very end,
after a lot of other stuff.
The command line comes up early (showing the blacklist):
[0.00] Linux version 4.10.12-200.fc25.x86_64
(mockbu...@bkernel02.phx2.fedoraproject.org) (gcc version 6.3.1 20161221
(Red Hat 6.3.1-1) (GCC) ) #1 SMP Sat Apr 22 03:03:34 UTC 2017
[
Hi,
> You probably meant lsinitrd (not lsmod).
Yes, this is true; "lsinitrd" (from the dracut package) show the
contents of the initramfs image.
If you see that r8712u there and want to avoid loading it in boot
time, I believe
you have 2 options:
1) Add "rd.driver.blacklist=r8712u" to the kernel
On 5 May 2017 at 19:50, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 05/04/2017 01:28 PM, David De Graaf wrote:
>>
>> Is blacklisting broken?
>>
>> I've created /etc/modprobe.d/wireless.conf with one line:
>> blacklist r8712u
>> and yet, after a reboot, the r8712u m
On 05/04/2017 01:28 PM, David De Graaf wrote:
Is blacklisting broken?
I've created /etc/modprobe.d/wireless.conf with one line:
blacklist r8712u
and yet, after a reboot, the r8712u module is installed.
I don't think it's broken, no. The man page for modprobe.conf
Is blacklisting broken?
I've created /etc/modprobe.d/wireless.conf with one line:
blacklist r8712u
and yet, after a reboot, the r8712u module is installed.
Why?
It isn't being used; if I run rmmod -vv r8712u it is removed
and nothing else changes. The wireless USB adapter s
Hi,
I have a Fedora 18 system that I just setup multipath
on. The problem is, blkid no longer reports UUIDs on any disk that I
have on the multipath.conf blacklist. Is there a way around
this? It presents a problem because I mount quite a few volumes via
their UUID because they are iSCSI a
"François Patte" wrote:
>One more question: will it be necessary to regenerate the initramfs if
>the kernel is updated or the update process via yum will do the job?
No need to manually regenerate. When the new kernel is installed it creates a
new initramfs file and since it is blacklisted, th
5:51 +0200
>>>> François Patte wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to tell udev to ignore this hardware and skip anything
>>>>> regarding it.
>
>>> I do this for my Digium TDM400P card for Asterisk:
>>> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.n
t;>> Is there a way to tell udev to ignore this hardware and skip anything
>>>> regarding it.
>> I do this for my Digium TDM400P card for Asterisk:
>> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.netjet.conf
>>
>> Which contains:
>> # Blacklist the netjet driver for t
now it was there.
> I do this for my Digium TDM400P card for Asterisk:
> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.netjet.conf
>
> Which contains:
> # Blacklist the netjet driver for the 2.6.32 kernel as it prevents the
> # wctdm (TDM400P) driver from loading.
> blacklist netjet
>
> You wo
d/blacklist.netjet.conf
Which contains:
# Blacklist the netjet driver for the 2.6.32 kernel as it prevents the
# wctdm (TDM400P) driver from loading.
blacklist netjet
You would do:
blacklist cx18
--
Anthony - http://messinet.com - http://messinet.com/~amessina/gallery
8F89 5E72 8DF0 BCF0 10BE 99
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:55:51 +0200
François Patte wrote:
> Is there a way to tell udev to ignore this hardware and skip anything
> regarding it.
I have often wondered this as well. I wish there were some way
to specify PCI device IDs to be skipped on the kernel command
line so the kernel would ju
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bonjour,
On a Toshiba laptop, I have an integrated TV card which is strangely not
recognised by udev, but which install the correct kernel module
specified by lspci.
lspci gives:
02:09.0 0400: 14f1:5b7a
Subsystem: 1179:0010
Flags: bu
Can we have Vinu Moses name blacklisted and contact details removed
from list please, his/her adverts have little to do with Linux discussion.
thanks
Roger
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
Joel Rees:
>> Deliberately leak trap addresses in places I tend to use my real
>> addresses, auto-blacklist anything that hits the trap addresses.
Bruno Wolff III:
> That approach has a problem. One significant source of spam is compromised
> accounts. If you go that route, e
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 16:36:31 +0900,
Joel Rees wrote:
>
> Deliberately leak trap addresses in places I tend to use my real
> addresses, auto-blacklist anything that hits the trap addresses.
That approach has a problem. One significant source of spam is compromised
accounts.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 17:34:38 +0800,
Ed Greshko wrote:
>
> AFAIK, SPF records are queried by the receiving based on the domainname
> in the "From" address. So, if a spammer is pretending to be sending
> from u...@hotmail.com the receiving end will make a DNS request for the
> TXT records of
On 06/28/2010 09:49 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> SPF ... bah its silly. Here's another reason not to use it ... DKIM is
> much better. Not perfect but much better.
>
Not advocating either one. Just used that to indicate that *if* gmail
valued SPF and *if* their choice of SPF records hinted
(1) Perhaps people are not familiar with how GreetPause works.
It was introduced in sendmail 8.13.x
Upon the socket connection, ordinarily sendmail opens the SMTP
transaction with a Greeting - if the sending agent respects the protocol
it will wait for this greeting before sending anyt
On 06/28/2010 12:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 11:56 AM, Tim wrote:
>> Only a few thousand? What do you think is a huge list? And that's just
>> your list of mail servers for one service... What about the other ISPs,
>> the thousands of them?
>>
> Having a look at the SPF records..
On 06/27/2010 11:56 PM, jdow wrote:
>> This splat-with-no wait is classic of spammers - e.g. a pc bot - they
>> program them to send the header, send the body. close. This kind of bot
>> will not get through the greet pause delay.
>
> Gene, Ed mentioned this and I will, too. The "DUH", the reall
On 06/28/2010 05:05 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I believe that's what SPF is supposed to solve. Sites advertise in
>> their DNS records which the "official" outgoing email servers are.
>
> Spammers advertise SPF records of 'the whole internet' (normally split
> into chunks to confuse checkers) and tu
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:38:12 -0700
"jdow" wrote:
> From: "Alan Cox"
> Sent: Monday, 2010/June/28 02:05
>
>
> > I believe that's what SPF is supposed to solve. Sites advertise in
> > their DNS records which the "official" outgoing email servers are.
>
> Spammers advertise SPF records of 'the
From: "Alan Cox"
Sent: Monday, 2010/June/28 02:05
> I believe that's what SPF is supposed to solve. Sites advertise in
> their DNS records which the "official" outgoing email servers are.
Spammers advertise SPF records of 'the whole internet' (normally split
into chunks to confuse checkers) an
On 06/28/2010 05:05 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> Spammers advertise SPF records of 'the whole internet' (normally split
> into chunks to confuse checkers) and turning on SPF checking naïvely
> simply helps the spam get through.
>
>
Could you expound upon that a bit?
AFAIK, SPF records are queried by t
> I believe that's what SPF is supposed to solve. Sites advertise in
> their DNS records which the "official" outgoing email servers are.
Spammers advertise SPF records of 'the whole internet' (normally split
into chunks to confuse checkers) and turning on SPF checking naïvely
simply helps the s
t; check
> for false detections, and simply never see some of their mail.
>
> This is harder to do on an individual level, because most of your spam
> messages are different from each other.
At the individual level, I keep telling myself I'm going to set up a
honeytrap, or maybe
On 06/28/2010 12:57 PM, James Matthews wrote:
> Using open source tools is one thing. Google uses a combination of
> open and closed source anti spam tools. Since Gmail is so popular
> google is able to sample spam and learn to protect it from the get go
Too bad they don't seem to have outbound
Using open source tools is one thing. Google uses a combination of open and
closed source anti spam tools. Since Gmail is so popular google is able to
sample spam and learn to protect it from the get go
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 11:56 AM, Tim wrote:
>
On 06/28/2010 11:56 AM, Tim wrote:
> Only a few thousand? What do you think is a huge list? And that's just
> your list of mail servers for one service... What about the other ISPs,
> the thousands of them?
>
Having a look at the SPF records
gmail.com. 300 IN TXT
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 20:30 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> have them send a dummy e-mail, wait 5 minutes and then send the
> important e-mail or wait 15 minutes. Hardly a big deal.
Do you really spend 15 minutes making someone wait around while you're
trying to conduct business that should only take
that it
is spam, though.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin J. Cummings"
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2010/June/27 19:14
Subject: Re: Sendmail: How does one blacklist annoying spammers?
> On 06/27/2010 10:04 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> This one particular client doesn&#x
Genes MailLists:
>>> So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
>>> outbound mx hosts ...
Tim:
>> That's gotta be a huge list. And won't some of them be spam sources,
>> anyway?
Genes MailLists:
> Not huge at all - I'm doing this for the outbound MX's of trusted mai
From: "Genes MailLists"
Sent: Sunday, 2010/June/27 19:08
> On 06/27/2010 09:47 PM, Tim wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>> So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
>>> outbound mx hosts ...
>>
>> That's gotta be a huge list. And w
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 11:22 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 13:11 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >With GreetPause I am already causing a small delay which works very
> > well for those spammers/bots which are in violation of the standards.
> > However, I have carefully singled out al
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 11:17 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
> > outbound mx hosts ...
>
> That's gotta be a huge list. And won't some of them be spam sources,
> anyway?
gre
On 06/27/2010 10:24 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 10:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> I prefer the obvious and simple 'outbound MX host' ...
> IMHO, using a patently incorrect terminology only leads to confusion,
> mis-understanding, and results in ignorance when someone who doesn't
> know
On 06/28/2010 10:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> I prefer the obvious and simple 'outbound MX host' ...
IMHO, using a patently incorrect terminology only leads to confusion,
mis-understanding, and results in ignorance when someone who doesn't
know any better or know the difference takes what you s
On 06/27/2010 10:04 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> This one particular client doesn't use whitelists and they don't
> experience any delays in delivery from those domains simply because they
> have been populated in the DB and due to the frequency they connect
> those records don't expire.
>
> Oh, FWIW,
On 06/27/2010 10:04 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 09:47 AM, Tim wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
> Maybemaybe not
>
> I just checked the logs from one client. There were multiple spam with
> email addresses of yahoo.com, yahoo.co.jp, and
On 06/27/2010 09:47 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
>> outbound mx hosts ...
>
> That's gotta be a huge list. And won't some of them be spam sources,
> anyway?
>
Not huge at all
On 06/28/2010 09:47 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
>> outbound mx hosts ...
>>
> That's gotta be a huge list. And won't some of them be spam sources,
> anyway?
>
Maybe.
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 13:11 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>With GreetPause I am already causing a small delay which works very
> well for those spammers/bots which are in violation of the standards.
> However, I have carefully singled out all major email MX outbound
> hosts for 0 greet pause. B
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 14:08 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> So if you're gonna gray list - please whitelist all the standard ISP
> outbound mx hosts ...
That's gotta be a huge list. And won't some of them be spam sources,
anyway?
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't
From: "Daniel B. Thurman"
Sent: Friday, 2010/June/25 14:46
>
> I thought it was sufficient to look into the headers
> of the offending email spammmers and add these respective
> IP address and/or host names to the /etc/mail/access file,
> but I am beginning to suspect that these headers could b
On 06/27/2010 04:49 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
> This is the audit log of milter-greylist:
>
> type=AVC msg=audit(1277670351.513:52178): avc: denied { getattr } for
> pid=30048 comm="sendmail"
> path="/var/run/milter-greylist/milter-greylist.sock" dev=sda3
> ino=4114571 scontext=unconfined
On 06/27/2010 04:23 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
> Looks like I am running to a couple of problems:
>
> 1) Starting greylist-milter daemon:
> a) # service milter-greylist restart
> Stopping Milter-Greylist: [ OK ]
> Starting Milter-Greylist: /usr/sbin/
On 06/27/2010 01:23 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/2010 12:27 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
I wanted to mention that there are some
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 12:27 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I wanted to mention that there are some in this posting that
>>> are recommending greylisting... but have not said anyth
On 06/27/2010 12:27 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>
>> I wanted to mention that there are some in this posting that
>> are recommending greylisting... but have not said anything
>> about how this is implemented into sendmail... so, what is
>>
On 06/27/2010 03:27 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>> I wanted to mention that there are some in this posting that
>> are recommending greylisting... but have not said anything
>> about how this is implemented into sendmail... so, what is
>> your
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> I wanted to mention that there are some in this posting that
> are recommending greylisting... but have not said anything
> about how this is implemented into sendmail... so, what is
> your take on this?
yum install milter-greylist
and possibly
On 06/27/2010 10:06 AM, Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 09:45 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/2010 07:56 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/26/2010 07:57 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
THANKS! I have implemented the above recommendatio
On 06/27/2010 01:11 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
Additionally - some of the gray list tools may not perform well if the
first reject is back to MX-host-1 and the next queue flush comes from
MX_host-2.
gmail, as an example, uses over 2,500 outbound mx hosts ... if queues
are shared (certainly
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
good so far, but I will report back in a couple more days...
>
> I wanted to mention that there are some in this posting that
> are recommending greylisting... but have not said anything
> about how this is implemented into sendmail... so, what is
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 09:45 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 07:56 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 06/26/2010 07:57 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> THANKS! I have implemented the above recommendations
> >> as well as a few other advices in this posting.
> >>
> >> Than
On 06/27/2010 07:56 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/26/2010 07:57 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>
>> THANKS! I have implemented the above recommendations
>> as well as a few other advices in this posting.
>>
>> Thanks to all who participated - all very interesting to
>> know how others have
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 20:09 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 17:55 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > I use greylisting on all mail servers that I administrate and I
> > specifically use one that maintains a list of well known smtp servers
> > such as yahoo - it's a rather substantial list and
DKIM signed emails:
Not directly anti-spam but very related.
Major outbound MX mail is generally signed by DKIM (or domainkeys).
While I am not yet making rejection decisions on sigatures that fail - I
do have my mail client color them green/red when a DKIM/DK sig is good/bad.
I also ensure
On 06/26/2010 07:57 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> THANKS! I have implemented the above recommendations
> as well as a few other advices in this posting.
>
> Thanks to all who participated - all very interesting to
> know how others have tackled the their spam issues.
>
> I will report how it a
On 06/27/2010 06:39 PM, Tim wrote:
> I don't mind people
> suggesting it, or implementing it well. But it should be advised with
> the appropriate precautions that you will need to manually add some
> overrides. And unless you monitor logs (many won't), or hear about
> problems in some other way
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 17:55 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> I use greylisting on all mail servers that I administrate and I
> specifically use one that maintains a list of well known smtp servers
> such as yahoo - it's a rather substantial list and maintained so that
> pretty much obviates your point #
On 06/27/2010 06:11 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:55 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> Do you know of any MTAs able to share outbound queues that would
>> account for this?
>>
> The issues I mentioned have cropped up on a few lists, but it hasn't
> been me analysing it. I seem to r
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:55 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Do you know of any MTAs able to share outbound queues that would
> account for this?
The issues I mentioned have cropped up on a few lists, but it hasn't
been me analysing it. I seem to recall that this list and yahoo were
two culprits.
--
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 11:38 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 11:34 AM, Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 11:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> >
> >> The folks that "complain" about "delays" are also those that set their
> >> POP/IMAP polling intervals to 1min and would love to set
On 06/27/2010 11:34 AM, Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 11:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> The folks that "complain" about "delays" are also those that set their
>> POP/IMAP polling intervals to 1min and would love to set it to 1sec if
>> they were given the option. I suspect they w
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 11:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> The folks that "complain" about "delays" are also those that set their
> POP/IMAP polling intervals to 1min and would love to set it to 1sec if
> they were given the option. I suspect they would have died in the age
> of UUCP.
immaterial
On 06/27/2010 10:42 AM, Greg Woods wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>
>> A well written greylisting milter will utilize a database to maintain a
>> list of sending MTAs that have retried.
>>
> Of course. However, many large sites (including ours, which is onl
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> A well written greylisting milter will utilize a database to maintain a
> list of sending MTAs that have retried.
Of course. However, many large sites (including ours, which is only
medium sized) have multiple IP addresses that send out mail
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 10:16 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > A well written greylisting milter will utilize a database to maintain
> > a list of sending MTAs that have retried. Additionally, the good
> > milters will have the ability to specify whitelist
On 06/27/2010 08:46 AM, Tim wrote:
>
> Where greylisting, typically, becomes a cropper is when some *BIG*
> service like Yahoo tries to mail you, gets grey listed, and it spits the
> dummy about not being able to post (some do get pernickity about it,
> with a low threshold for suspending posts tha
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 08:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> A well written greylisting milter will utilize a database to maintain
> a list of sending MTAs that have retried. Additionally, the good
> milters will have the ability to specify whitelists and blacklists.
> But, even if you don't do the work
On 06/27/2010 03:55 AM, Greg Woods wrote:
>
> It should be noted that greylisting *will* cause some delays in
> legitimate messages, and the length of the delay is totally under the
> control of the sending server. Personally, I think any communication
> that can't tolerate a few minutes or even an
On 06/25/2010 06:26 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 05:56 PM, Greg Woods wrote:
>
>
> Historical thoughts on RBL:
>
>You've had several suggestions so just a couple of comments. The
> MAPS list (aka rbl) was an/the original DNSBL - if I remember right it
> went weird a long back and
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 22:47 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> A while back I did some observations and found that greylisting was most
> effective at cutting spam.
I forgot to mention that we use greylisting too; I highly recommend this
as well. It is difficult to tell how many greylisted messages were
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 22:47 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/26/2010 10:15 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> > I actually find SpamAssassin by itself is quite adequate,
> > reducing spam to perhaps 5% of my email.
> > But if adding SpamHaus improves even this
> > I am more than willing to try it.
> >
>
On 06/26/2010 02:39 AM, Steve Searle was caught red-handed while writing::
> Around 04:48am on Saturday, June 26, 2010 (UK time), JD scrawled:
>
>> Did not google's founder expose a Chinese dissident's
>> identity to China's government and the executed him?
>
> I honestly don't think Google have
Am 26.06.2010 16:49, schrieb stan:
> My ISP (Qwest) uses the commercial version of hotmail as their mail
> service for subscribers. In over a year, I don't remember seeing a
> single spam email. I suspect Tim's argument is the reason. Hotmail is
> *known* for spam, so they would get lots of pract
Am 26.06.2010 16:47, schrieb Ed Greshko:
> On 06/26/2010 10:15 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> >
>> > Assuming this is correct, and is an effective safeguard,
>> > it seems a little surprising to me that it is not suggested
>> > somewhere in the Fedora-13 documentation.
>> > (Or maybe it is?)
>> >
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:06:31 +0930
Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 14:54 -0700, JD wrote:
> > I wonder how Google does it. only .01% of my google email is spam.
> > The spam folder contains tons of spam, and it is automatically
> > purged by google.
>
> When you're a large mail host you have
In case you missed this post - here is a reasonable recipe based on many
years of senamil server admin'ing - feel free to modify, improve or ignore!
On 06/25/2010 09:26 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
>1) FEATURE(`enhdnsbl', `bl.spamcop.net', `', `t', `127.0.0.2.')dnl
>Add more if
On 06/26/2010 10:15 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> Assuming this is correct, and is an effective safeguard,
> it seems a little surprising to me that it is not suggested
> somewhere in the Fedora-13 documentation.
> (Or maybe it is?)
>
I have not found blacklisting to be particularly useful mysel
Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Are you saying you can implement spamhaus by a line in sendmail.mc ?
>> If so, what is the line?
>
> FEATURE(`dnsbl', `zen.spamhaus.org', `"550 Mail from " $`'&{client_addr}
> " refused - see http://www.spamhaus.org/";')
>
> is specific to spamhaus.
>
> Typing "spamhaus sen
On 06/25/2010 06:04 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:54:27 -0700
> JD wrote:
>
>> I wonder how Google does it. only .01% of my google email is spam.
>> The spam folder contains tons of spam, and it is automatically purged
>> by google.
> Yea, I just use gmail as my mail provider and
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 12:48 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Are you saying you can implement spamhaus by a line in sendmail.mc ?
I have avoided actually saying that because it has been years since I
did anything with sendmail, I have been using postfix, so I cannot
comment on sendmail syntax. Howe
On 06/26/2010 07:48 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Greg Woods wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:29 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Are you talking about something like this from sendmail.mc:
>>>
>>> FEATURE(`dnsbl', `relays.ordb.org', `"Rejected due to Open Relay see
>>> http://
Greg Woods wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:29 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>> Are you talking about something like this from sendmail.mc:
>>
>> FEATURE(`dnsbl', `relays.ordb.org', `"Rejected due to Open Relay see
>> http://www.ordb.org/lookup/?host="; $&{clientaddr} " for more
>> informat
Around 04:48am on Saturday, June 26, 2010 (UK time), JD scrawled:
> Did not google's founder expose a Chinese dissident's
> identity to China's government and the executed him?
I honestly don't think Google have executed anyone.
Steve
--
(o< www.stevesearle.com
//\ Powered by Fedora
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:48 -0700, JD wrote:
>
> On 06/25/2010 04:58 PM, Tom Horsley was caught red-handed while writing::
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:24:09 -0700
> > Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But... at what cost?
> >>
> >> You want google hold your messages and do whatever
> >> the
On 06/25/2010 04:58 PM, Tom Horsley was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:24:09 -0700
> Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
>
>> But... at what cost?
>>
>> You want google hold your messages and do whatever
>> they deem fit with it?
>>
> Why shucks! Their company slogan
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:24:09 -0700
Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> But... at what cost?
>
> You want google hold your messages and do whatever
> they deem fit with it?
Why shucks! Their company slogan is "Don't be evil",
surely we can trust them (or was it "To Serve Man", I forget).
And now they'll h
On 06/25/2010 09:26 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Forgot one thing.
For all the hosts you trust - google mx's, yahoo mx etc.
Remove the GreetPause delay:
e.g.
GreetPause:mail-bw0-f1.google.com0
gene/
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or cha
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 14:54 -0700, JD wrote:
> I wonder how Google does it. only .01% of my google email is spam.
> The spam folder contains tons of spam, and it is automatically purged
> by google.
When you're a large mail host you have one big advantage in spam
killing: You will receive tons of
On 06/25/2010 05:56 PM, Greg Woods wrote:
Historical thoughts on RBL:
You've had several suggestions so just a couple of comments. The
MAPS list (aka rbl) was an/the original DNSBL - if I remember right it
went weird a long back and required you fill out a long legal doc (with
a pen) which i
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:46:24PM -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
> I thought it was sufficient to look into the headers
> of the offending email spammmers and add these respective
> IP address and/or host names to the /etc/mail/access file,
> but I am beginning to suspect that these headers co
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 08:47 +0800, Harish Pillay wrote:
> Daniel -
>
> > I thought it was sufficient to look into the headers
> > of the offending email spammmers and add these respective
> > IP address and/or host names to the /etc/mail/access file,
> > but I am beginning to suspect that these he
Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> I thought it was sufficient to look into the headers
> of the offending email spammmers and add these respective
> IP address and/or host names to the /etc/mail/access file,
> but I am beginning to suspect that these headers could be
> easily spoofed with bogus entries, r
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
