On 22/02/2025 04:23, Alex wrote:
I can't explain to users that day after day, there's some random gmail
user being blocked because one of the world's largest providers is
allowing their IPs used by millions of other users to be abused.
Nor should you have to, just put it in your TOU/T&C, but
On 22/02/2025 05:33, Greg Troxel wrote:
Alex writes:
I can't explain to users that day after day, there's some random gmail
user
being blocked because one of the world's largest providers is allowing
their IPs used by millions of other users to be abused.
There's nothing my users or the leg
I received this phishing spam yesterday. That was not the first of
this kind. (attached, w/o the image)
I thought about this and wrote this uri-bad-unicode.cf Insert it
in your local.cf or in /etc/spammassin, adjust the scores and restart
spamd. Comments welcome.
I am pretty sure there are more
Alex writes:
> I can't explain to users that day after day, there's some random gmail user
> being blocked because one of the world's largest providers is allowing
> their IPs used by millions of other users to be abused.
>
> There's nothing my users or the legitimate users sending email to my us
>
>
> avoiding checking google ranges in DNS*Ls could make sense, at least we'd
> avoid excessive DNS requests towards them and getting blocked there.
>
> however the only SA way I can think of is adding
> 209.85.128.0/17 and 74.125.0.0/16 to trusted_networks which would result
> into ALL_TRUSTED h
On 22/02/2025 00:21, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Noel Butler skrev den 2025-02-21 10:54:
and I'm sure thats exactly what he doesn't want, whitelisting one of
the biggest spammers, yeah, that makes sense not...
off your drugs again Noel? you dont get to tell ANYONE how they can
post in here.
Noel Butler skrev den 2025-02-21 10:54:
and I'm sure thats exactly what he doesn't want, whitelisting one of
the biggest spammers, yeah, that makes sense not...
off your drugs again Noel? you dont get to tell ANYONE how they can post
in here.
sadly i need to have auto-reader on your ema
On 21/02/2025 18:36, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
avoiding checking google ranges in DNS*Ls could make sense, at least
we'd avoid excessive DNS requests towards them and getting blocked
there.
however the only SA way I can think of is adding
209.85.128.0/17 and 74.125.0.0/16 to trusted_netwo
On 21/02/2025 05:26, Alex wrote:
What should the policy be on blocking Google IPs?
* 2.3 RCVD_IN_PSBL RBL: Received via a relay in PSBL
* [209.85.208.194 listed in psbl.surriel.com [1]]
* 2.2 RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_30_49 RBL: Senderscore.org score of 30 to 49
* [209.85.208.194 listed in
