Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> whitelist_from fr...@example.net
> blacklist_to yourownaddr...@example.com
>
Thanks. This looks like a good solution. Which files do I edit to set this?
I'm using Plesk to set up the whitelist, so I haven't had to open the config
files before.
Andrew
--
View this m
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:30:08 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I can't see as how the CEO of Spamhaus is making out like the
> CEO of your typical public company, so knock it off.
>
> There is nothing wrong with a for-profit organization running an
> open source division and making sales calls int
On 6/12/2010 7:09 AM, Andy Dills wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 2010-06-12 15:20, Andy Dills wrote:
300,000 queries per day...per server? per CIDR? What is the delimiter?
Because there is certainly no single IP generating 300,000 queries per day.
That is probably
On 6/11/2010 8:00 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 11.06.10 10:42, Andy Dills wrote:
After recently upgrading to a new mail cluster with SA 3.3.1, we were
contacted (at every imaginable POC address) with a solicitation to
purchase access to utilize the Spamhaus blacklists, or they'll stop
Hello Andy Dills,
Am 2010-06-12 10:09:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> That's why I'm asking how the limits are designed. In the past I had
> problems a certain other blacklist wanting money. We were using a central
> resolver. Their thresholds were based on queries per IP, not network.
>
Hello Marc,
Am 2010-06-11 10:23:51, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Also - I'd like to make a list of host names where email from celll
> phones comes from. Does anyone have a list of domain name or host
> names where cell phone email is sent from?
One of the spamers domains are
[ STDIN
On lør 12 jun 2010 17:59:51 CEST, andrewj wrote
I want to accept email on that address from certain trusted users. I want to
block everything except the whitelist. can I do this?
Andrew
whitelist_from fr...@example.net
blacklist_to yourownaddr...@example.com
when friend write to you scores wil
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
andrewj wrote:
>
> I am migrating to a new server with SpamAssassin. I have a well-known
> email address which is a common spam target, and I want to set it up
> so that only addresses on my whitelist are allowed, everything else
> is automatically blackl
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 08:59 -0700, andrewj wrote:
>
> Evan Platt wrote:
> >
> > Why are you accepting e-mail to that address in the first place? You
> > should have your MTA not accept the mail in the first place.
> >
>
> I want to accept email on that address from certain trusted users. I want
On 6/12/10 10:59 AM, "andrewj" wrote:
> I want to accept email on that address from certain trusted users. I want to
> block everything except the whitelist. can I do this?
Do you want those users whitelisted globally, or just for that specific
address? If globally is fine, then just add the tru
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, andrewj wrote:
I am migrating to a new server with SpamAssassin. I have a well-known
email address which is a common spam target, and I want to set it up so
that only addresses on my whitelist are allowed, everything else is
automatically blacklisted. How do I set this up?
Evan Platt wrote:
>
> Why are you accepting e-mail to that address in the first place? You
> should have your MTA not accept the mail in the first place.
>
I want to accept email on that address from certain trusted users. I want to
block everything except the whitelist. can I do this?
Andrew
On 06/12/2010 08:20 AM, andrewj wrote:
I am migrating to a new server with SpamAssassin. I have a well-known email
address which is a common spam target, and I want to set it up so that only
addresses on my whitelist are allowed, everything else is automatically
blacklisted. How do I set this up?
I am migrating to a new server with SpamAssassin. I have a well-known email
address which is a common spam target, and I want to set it up so that only
addresses on my whitelist are allowed, everything else is automatically
blacklisted. How do I set this up?
Thanks
Andrew
--
View this message in
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers.)
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 09:50 -0400, Charles G
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 10:09 -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > > Because there is certainly no single IP generating 300,000 queries per
> > > day.
> >
> > That is probably your problem... use a central DNS resolver and your query
> > count will instantly
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 2010-06-12 15:20, Andy Dills wrote:
> > 300,000 queries per day...per server? per CIDR? What is the delimiter?
> >
> > Because there is certainly no single IP generating 300,000 queries per day.
>
> That is probably your problem... use a central
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:32:05 -0400
Chris Conn wrote:
> In a followup to
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/151470;
>
> Is it possible to set the priority on RBL rules to run after rules,
> or not at all if shortcircuited?
RBL test are done in parallel, and they are init
I got another 1MB spam today.
I still don't want to kill my system by attempting to scan every large
mail that comes in.
Has there been any progress on an 'option' to scan only text portions of
mail past a certain size limit and/or scan only the first X bytes? The
former is preferable becau
On 2010-06-12 15:20, Andy Dills wrote:
300,000 queries per day...per server? per CIDR? What is the delimiter?
Because there is certainly no single IP generating 300,000 queries per
day.
That is probably your problem... use a central DNS resolver and your
query count will instantly decrease
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 14:07 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:06:23 +0200
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > No need to stretch the term "large". That's a throughput of more than
> > 1 mail per second -- 100k SMTP connections per day. And that is
> > without any local caching at all. With
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Br�ckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 00:19 -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > The most important argument for me to keep it enabled by default is
> > > simple. Small organizations and home users DO NOT have the know
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:06:23 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> No need to stretch the term "large". That's a throughput of more than
> 1 mail per second -- 100k SMTP connections per day. And that is
> without any local caching at all. With caching, the throughput would
> be considerably higher,
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 00:19 -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > The most important argument for me to keep it enabled by default is
> > simple. Small organizations and home users DO NOT have the knowledge and
> > admin power to care about all that stuff th
24 matches
Mail list logo
