On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
> Thanks. Ok, I did some looking around and decided that
> http://qmail.jms1.net has the patch for me
> (netqmail-1.05-validrcptto.cdb.patch). The problem is that it seems
> that when people have tried to patch the Gentoo version of netqmail
> they get errors. Has an
J. wrote:
Thanks. Ok, I did some looking around and decided that
http://qmail.jms1.net has the patch for me
(netqmail-1.05-validrcptto.cdb.patch). The problem is that it seems
that when people have tried to patch the Gentoo version of netqmail
they get errors. Has anyone here gotten this working
--- R Lists06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jason wrote:
> > Thanks Jim and John, that helps a lot. I'm glad that qmail is like
> this
> > by default because otherwise my setup would be to blame. :) I'm
> using
> > qmail to handle incoming and outgoing mail for my domain but using
> a
> > very o
> Jason wrote:
> Thanks Jim and John, that helps a lot. I'm glad that qmail is like this
> by default because otherwise my setup would be to blame. :) I'm using
> qmail to handle incoming and outgoing mail for my domain but using a
> very old lan based mail server to actually deliver mail to our us
--- Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't realize that most people are denying smtp connections for
> >> bad addresses. That's great that this is possible. So most of the
> >> people on this list reject connections that a
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
I didn't realize that most people are denying smtp connections for
bad addresses. That's great that this is possible. So most of the
people on this list reject connections that are for bad addresses?
That's great. I think that would cut down
--- ram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 07:18 -0700, J. wrote:
> > --- ram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:14 -0700, J. wrote:
> > > > Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection
> > > rejection
> > > > campaign over the past wee
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
> I didn't realize that most people are denying smtp connections for
> bad addresses. That's great that this is possible. So most of the
> people on this list reject connections that are for bad addresses?
> That's great. I think that would cut down the spam we get b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:13 PM, J. wrote:
Recipient address verification is an *Absolute must*. If you dont do
that you will get your own server into trouble and get them listed in
all RBLs Just like you are cursing mailservers that are flooding you
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 07:18 -0700, J. wrote:
> --- ram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:14 -0700, J. wrote:
> > > Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection
> > rejection
> > > campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time
> > in
> >
--- "Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J." said:
> >Thanks Ram. Not sure how to implement recipient verification with
> my
> >setup, but I'll look into it. I have an SPF record for my domain
>
> I'm confused. Are you all saying that J's mail server was processing
> a
"J." said:
>Thanks Ram. Not sure how to implement recipient verification with my
>setup, but I'll look into it. I have an SPF record for my domain
I'm confused. Are you all saying that J's mail server was processing all
incoming e-mails, even if there wasn't an alias set up on that domain? in ot
On 9 Apr 2007, at 15:18, J. wrote:
--- ram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Verify recipient addresses
2) Add SPF records for your domain. And blacklist those servers who
accept forged mails from your domain and bounce them
3) If you are suddenly facing a flush of Mailer-"Demons" give a
TEMPFAIL
--- ram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:14 -0700, J. wrote:
> > Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection
> rejection
> > campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time
> in
> > many months with a backscatter spam attack. Spammer(s) us
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:14 -0700, J. wrote:
> Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection rejection
> campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time in
> many months with a backscatter spam attack. Spammer(s) use random
> addresses with our domain for their sp
One issue is that I have fast_spamassassin turned on so I don't get to
filter on specific rules that a mail hits. Do you use this and if so,
do you know if you have to filter based on the rule getting hit?
This is the Qmail thing that throws away the SA markup, isn't it?
I'm not running vbounce
J. wrote the following on 4/8/2007 4:11 PM -0800:
> --- Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Also, have you taken a look at the SA "vbounce" ruleset? See:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/VBounceRuleset
>>
>
> One issue is that I have fast_spamassassin turned on so I
--- Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, have you taken a look at the SA "vbounce" ruleset? See:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/VBounceRuleset
One issue is that I have fast_spamassassin turned on so I don't get to
filter on specific rules that a mail hits. Do you use thi
--- Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J. wrote the following on 4/8/2007 11:14 AM -0800:
> > Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection
> rejection
> > campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time
> in
> > many months with a backscatter spam attack.
J. wrote:
> Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection rejection
> campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time in
> many months with a backscatter spam attack. Spammer(s) use random
> addresses with our domain for their spamming so we get the flood
> (13000
J. wrote the following on 4/8/2007 11:14 AM -0800:
> Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection rejection
> campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time in
> many months with a backscatter spam attack. Spammer(s) use random
> addresses with our domain for th
Not sure if this is connected to my agressive smtp connection rejection
campaign over the past week, but we've been hit for the first time in
many months with a backscatter spam attack. Spammer(s) use random
addresses with our domain for their spamming so we get the flood
(13000+ since midnight) of
22 matches
Mail list logo
