--On Monday, December 11, 2006 15:41:27 -0500 Micheal Espinola Jr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This is due to a match via line (2) of InvalidFormatHeloRe.txt. My
| Regular Expression on this line may require some work, but I do not
| believe hostnames comprised of a single character are valid.
On 7 Dec 2006 at 9:28, Micheal Espinola Jr (mobile) wrote:
Be aware that can be easily spoofed. Your true protection lies in connection
filtering at your router and/or firewall.
Do you mean that there is something insecure in ASSP's admin connection list,
or that there is a
risk of session
No, you picked up a different meaning from what I had intended to
communicate, com.co.uk net.co.uk etc are prohibited, as are for instance
uk.eu fr.eu se.eu
--On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:52:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On 12 Dec 2006 at 9:09, Andrew Macpherson wrote:
|
| eg you
Hello list
quote
The address:port of your message handling system's smtp server. If only the
port is entered, or the keyword __INBOUND__:port is used, then the
connection will be established to the same IP where the connection was
received. This is usefull when you have several IPs with different
Hello all,
host252.atx.net
I was wondering why this HELO was deemed invalid.
Entire email attached as sample.txt
I think it is this line in my invalidate regex that I got from this list:
^host.*\.telecom\.net\.ar
The email comes from a site pbcompliance.com that does not appear to be spam
in
Hello,
the default configuration file is fine.
Btw, I experienced lately that ASSP 1.2.6 is getting very slow when
processing a message. The web interface is slow to respond and vice versa.
I experienced the same. Frome time to time ASSP slows down. The web
interface isn't updateing,
Matti Haack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Btw, I experienced lately that ASSP 1.2.6 is getting very slow when
processing a message. The web interface is slow to respond and vice
versa.
I experienced the same. Frome time to time ASSP slows down. The web
Eric B. wrote:
This does sound symptomatic of the Net::DNS issues that have been reported
on this list in the past. I would suggest you try downgrading to Net::DNS
0.57 and see if the system improves.
This Wiki home page includes a link where you can download older versions of
Net::DNS.
If the email domains behind ASSP have significantly different HAM,
wouldn't that result in a muddled SPAM database?
Under this implementation, would ASSP then maintain separate
SPAM/HAM/WL/etc. for each?
I run four ASSP instances on separate IPs pointing back to a single MTA
instance
I have noticed that the interface display has slowed since the
implementation of URIBL. I don't believe its in relation to the
Net::DNS issue, other than the fact that ASSP is single threaded and is
lagged when processing.
Rather than get overly technical trying to add multi-threading
I can confirm, that the problem on my server is NOT connected to NET::DNS
0.58 ,
as the revert to 0.57 didn't resolve the problem.
Going back to 1.2.6 didn't help either..
I will test if it is connected to some regex (i suspect some
invalidHelo regexes - could this be possible?)
Thanks for the insight. Guess I gotta read the manual and then some.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/REGEX---How-much-do-I-need-to-know-tf2795901.html#a7836378
Sent from the assp-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Martin, Evans (ITS) wrote:
I just received notification from my upstream provider who supplies us
with mailbagging service that I’m filling up their servers because of
the mail that I’m refusing. What do I need to do to protect them from
having to collect all of my refuse?
I think that is
--On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:03:09 + Mr Chris Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Examples: 127.0.0.1:125,127.0.0.1:125|127.0.0.5:125,
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion we've implemented failover on the
basis of that '|', no we havn't. It's a typo
You may however also specify eg
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
now, would it be possible to separate ASSP into two running processes?
One
I like the idea, and you make a very good point about how ASSP is
perceived. GUI performance can definitely leave a bad taste in ones
mouth.
greater part of the new
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rance Hall
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:20 AM
To: assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Assp-user] using assp to protect multiple domains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash:
--On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:08:41 -0600 Martin, Evans (ITS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| They said that by dropping connections like I am, it causes their server
| to try to deliver the mail again.
Ask them to stop being an MX secondary, and allow direct delivery. That
way ASSP will work
On 12 Dec 2006 at 10:50, Martin, Evans (ITS) wrote:
I just received notification from my upstream provider who supplies us
with mailbagging service that I´m filling up their servers because
of the mail that I´m refusing. What do I need to do to protect them
from having to collect all of my
On 12 Dec 2006 at 11:41, Andrew Macpherson wrote:
No, you picked up a different meaning from what I had intended to
communicate, com.co.uk net.co.uk etc are prohibited, as are for instance
uk.eu fr.eu se.eu
Ah, OK.
So, just run a primary MX pointing directly to my mail server?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
Macpherson
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re:
Andreas Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you downgrade?
I am running Net::DNS version 0.59 - but i installed it trough CSPAN with:
install Net::DNS
So how to downgrade to version 0.59 on Linux?
2 ways:
1- go to the CPAN site, and download the 0.57
Would they still be able to mailbag for me if I delete the secondary MX?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
Macpherson
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Martin, Evans (ITS) wrote:
So, just run a primary MX pointing directly to my mail server?
ASSP should be out in front of *any* MTAs or your ISP/relay will
continue to retry. Your ISP is doing what its supposed to do, just as
ASSP is doing what it is suppose to do.
Perhaps ASSP can be modified
On 12 Dec 2006 at 8:46, Doug Traylor wrote:
Hello all,
host252.atx.net
It matches your first validate line.
I was wondering why this HELO was deemed invalid.
Entire email attached as sample.txt
I think it is this line in my invalidate regex that I got from this list:
Chris Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, I'm running a bit light on sleep.
I meant Thunderbird.
I did some quick fishing a couple of weeks ago, but couldn't turn up
anything either for Thunderbird or Outlook Express. Agreed that it would be
very nice
Rance Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- From all the reading I get the idea that assp is designed to protect a
single mail server/domain.
Not at all. I am currently running ASSP in front of probably 50 or so
domains. Similarly, there are several other people
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Probably one on a very long list of cool features
to add to ASSP.
It is *not* cool. The ASSP common whitelist represents a trusted
environment for a group of people and the group gets
A solution to this that I have always had running in the back of by
mind
would be to change the format of the whitelist from a pair (address,
expiration) to a triplet (external address, internal address,
expiration).
Of course, I have no idea what kind of work it would require or the
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
why? what is not working ?
I'm not complaining or having an issue - but I know a lot of people that
want per-user whitelisting. Its a sought-after feature for a lot of
anti-spam product criteria.
The only reason why I've ever given it any thought is in terms of
product
Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Probably one on a very long list of cool features
to add to ASSP.
It is *not* cool. The ASSP common whitelist
Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Norman wrote:
I run four ASSP instances on separate IPs pointing back to a single
MTA instance (Merak). In this way, each domain has its own settings.
I used to have all the domains on one ASSP instance I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Micheal Espinola Jr
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Multiple servers
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
From: Andreas Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you downgrade?
I am running Net::DNS version 0.59 - but i installed it trough CSPAN with:
install Net::DNS
So how to downgrade to version 0.59 on Linux?
This was a Win32 only issue so far- are you sure your symptoms are the same?
Bro
I'm not complaining or having an issue - but I know a lot of people
that
want per-user whitelisting. Its a sought-after feature for a lot of
anti-spam product criteria.
We are not selling a product for money. We can do it right,
regardless what a lot of people think they want. I am a Mac -User
I looked at the bluefrog thunderbird plug in and it would almost work
except
What it does is take all the files in the junk folder and sends them ALL
as an attachment.
I think the way ASSP's email interface works, they each need to be a
separate email.
Also, from what I've read, I
Chris Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the way ASSP's email interface works, they each need to be a
separate email.
Correct - you need to send each spam email as a separate attachment.
Eric
Chris Norman wrote:
I think the way ASSP's email interface works, they each need to be a
separate email.
That's not true. Although, I don't know if ASSP has a limit to how much
it can process in a single e-mail.
Also, from what I've read, I don't think Thunderbird allows you to
I have started to add Allow List (Level 4) criteria to the Wiki
Blocking dangerous attachments article:
http://www.asspsmtp.org/wiki/Blocking_dangerous_attachments#Common_Attachments
I'm a Win32 guy, so these lists are from my perspective - which includes
limited exposure to Macs, etc, on a
Doug Traylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Norman wrote:
I think the way ASSP's email interface works, they each need to be a
separate email.
That's not true. Although, I don't know if ASSP has a limit to how much
it can process in a single e-mail.
It
At the weekend I went from 1.2.7(12) to 1.2.7(20). Since then I haven't had
a single spam email saved to the corpus. I tried creating a new directory
called spam1- on 20, no spam saved there- when I roll back to 12 they
started saving within seconds.
On Win32
--
Bro
I'm sick and tired of
At 4:36 PM +0100 12/12/06, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
We are working on a feature:
The idea is to distinguish destination based on point of connexion
typically IP address, but potentially ip:port. Only to be applied
where the destination is defined as __INBOUND__
Based on the connexion we may
41 matches
Mail list logo
