Re: [spamdyke-users] Rejecting Messages by Header Content question
Any message headers can be filtered. On my own server, most of my filters are for "From" and "Subject", but one very persistent spammer recently forced me to add a "To" filter as well. I try to add as few header filters as possible, but it just depends what the incoming spam looks like. -- Sam Clippinger On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Pablo Murillo (rednet) via spamdyke-userswrote: > Hi > > Which are the valid headers to filter ? > > I think, the obviuos ones are: FROM SUBJECT > REPLY-TO > > But.. > > Return-Path: > Message-ID: > Received: > List-* > > Are allowed ? > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] Graylisting delivery failure notifications
That's very unusual, it sounds like a setting on their server. It's been a long time, but I remember a setting on old sendmail servers that would send an "advisory message" if an email had been sitting in the queue too long. It was just a "by the way" notice (and it always confused every user who received it), saying the server had failed to deliver the message so far but it would continue trying for X hours. Maybe something like that is happening here -- the message is being stopped by graylisting but the remote server doesn't retry it very often, so it sits in the queue long enough to send a warning to the user? I suppose you could fix it by either reducing the overall graylisting time on your server or by turning off graylisting for messages from their domain (using a configuration directory). -- Sam Clippinger On Aug 18, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Quinn Comendant via spamdyke-userswrote: > A client using our Spamdyke-enabled mail server has reported someone sending > them an email received a "bounce" message notifying the sender that the > messages has been graylisted (see the delivery failure notification below). > They did receive the message (graylisting works well for us). > > This is the first time I've heard of a soft failure resulting in a > notification returning to the sender. If graylisting is a common practice, > these notifications must be terribly annoying, however the sender (from the > cdph.ca.gov network) seems surprised by the message. So either: A) > graylisting is not very common, or B) cdph.ca.gov has an uncommon setup that > sends annoying bounce messages. > > If graylisting will result in annoying senders with delivery failure > notifications, I'd prefer to avoid that by disabling graylisting (doesn't > matter who is to blame, what the RFCs say, etc). > > What do y'all think? > > Regards, > Quinn > > The delivery failure notification received: > >> Hi Barb and Steph - >> >> When the email below went out yesterday, the following message was received: >> >> redac...@clientdomain.org... >> Deferred: 421 Your address has been graylisted. Try again later. >> >> redac...@clientdomain.org... >> Deferred: 421 Your address has been graylisted. Try again later. >> >> Patricia >> Care Operations Advisor >> Office of AIDS >> California Department of Public Health > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
[spamdyke-users] Rejecting Messages by Header Content question
Hi Which are the valid headers to filter ? I think, the obviuos ones are: FROM SUBJECT REPLY-TO But.. Return-Path: Message-ID: Received: List-* Are allowed ? ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
[spamdyke-users] Graylisting delivery failure notifications
A client using our Spamdyke-enabled mail server has reported someone sending them an email received a "bounce" message notifying the sender that the messages has been graylisted (see the delivery failure notification below). They did receive the message (graylisting works well for us). This is the first time I've heard of a soft failure resulting in a notification returning to the sender. If graylisting is a common practice, these notifications must be terribly annoying, however the sender (from the cdph.ca.gov network) seems surprised by the message. So either: A) graylisting is not very common, or B) cdph.ca.gov has an uncommon setup that sends annoying bounce messages. If graylisting will result in annoying senders with delivery failure notifications, I'd prefer to avoid that by disabling graylisting (doesn't matter who is to blame, what the RFCs say, etc). What do y'all think? Regards, Quinn The delivery failure notification received: > Hi Barb and Steph - > > When the email below went out yesterday, the following message was received: > > redac...@clientdomain.org... > Deferred: 421 Your address has been graylisted. Try again later. > > redac...@clientdomain.org... > Deferred: 421 Your address has been graylisted. Try again later. > > Patricia> Care Operations Advisor > Office of AIDS > California Department of Public Health ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users