Thx Fritz for fixing this.
The same applies to 'Antoher Listen Port', gives the wrong log, too.
Rainer Traut schrieb:
Fritz Borgstedt schrieb:
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
2) Changing Listen Port gives wrong log output.
Hmm, I don't get it; changing it for the second time the log is alright?
Why?
Here changed from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.3:
Feb-2-07 09:04:26 Request to listen on new secondary mail port
127.0.0.1:25 (changed from 127.0.0.1:25) -- restart required; euid=509
Here changed from 127.0.0.3 to
So.. if the spammer try again it goes on whitelist ?! It doesn't
seem good.
Does it work in this (bad) way ?
No.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with
we made a new try.
Helo Fritz,
Sorry for my late answer. I tried this morning v1.2.7.8(7) and I have always
the problem. If I can help you, I can forward you two examples of spams
(good and bad cc'ed)
Jérôme.
-
So.. if the spammer try again it goes on whitelist ?! It doesn't
seem good.
Does it work in this (bad) way ?
It goes on the *whitelist for greylisting*, not on the *whitelist*.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to
Thank you Fritz , Thank you Matti
Great explanation and good tactics .
I have still to understand how to read the maillog.txt to understand
which email where denied by greylisting .
I must search for bounce delayed ?
Thanks !
On 2/2/07, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.. if the
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
I must search for bounce delayed ?
no, you must search for delayed
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support
You have to look for something like this:
Feb-2-07 11:11:18 86.90.243.30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] recipient delayed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or if you delay a bounce message (comming from null sender (email
Adress: ) which are normaly (often faked) postmaster messages)
Feb-1-07 00:10:08
Thank you . When I grep for delayed I receive only lines like these
Feb-2-07 09:50:55 204.228.236.18
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bounce delayed
I have no recipient delayed: message .
Probably because I activate delaying yesterday and have still to pass
the Wait time of 28 hours.
It was unchecked (!) . Thank you
I'll check now what happens.
On 2/2/07, Wim Borghs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/2/2, Ethan Albone [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thank you . When I grep for delayed I receive only lines like these
Feb-2-07 09:50:55 204.228.236.18
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to:
[EMAIL
ok now works ,
I think that I was confusing embargo time with wait time-
So the emabago time is ;
assp send a soft fail (try later)
If the sender don't resend again during the embargo time the email
will be declined.
Is it correct ?
On 2/2/07, Ethan Albone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was
Work fine ... loveable !
Yesterday I tried 1.2.7.8(5) and works great .
All the filters and all the spamlovers seems to works fine .
Thanks!
(I have only the problem with log file , some grep returns me a strange
binary error .)
On 2/2/07, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Questions and
we made a new try.
VERY GOOD !!!
I replaced IMSS instead of IIS and now that's OK !!! sorry for the bad news
..and CCallspam from Bombre with attachments works too :
Thanks a lot Wim and Fritz !!!
-
Using Tomcat
Too complicated. Whitelist the rim domain. Works fine here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:05 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: [Assp-user] NPre and
I suppose ...
if a message matched Bombre with an attachment (prehaps maxbytes) there is no
SMTP errors and this message is sended and sended.
Without attachment, the sender receives a Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Jérôme
Dickson, Paul wrote:
Too complicated. Whitelist the rim domain. Works fine here.
I took a similar approach for myself and some other clients. I used the
acceptAllMail function, with the following in a file to cover all
possible netblocks that I am aware of. These netblocks cover multiple
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
if a message matched Bombre with an attachment (prehaps maxbytes)
there is no SMTP errors and this message is sended and sended.
Without attachment, the sender receives a Delivery Status
These netblocks cover multiple
sending domain names that you may or may not be aware of (
. http://www.senderbase.org/
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with
The default is 550.
500 is *not* good.
Ok !
I have :
Spam Bomb Error : 500 Your message was rejected because it appears to be
part of a spam bomb -- rephrase your message and try sending it again.
-
Using Tomcat
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Spam Bomb Error : 500
Everybody should look through the SMTP codes in the SMTP messages,
500 is wrong for a lot of dumb servers, always use 550.
The default is 550.
500 is *not* good.
I didn't notice someone changed the wrong old default :)
do you suggest just a 550 o something like 550 5.7.1 Message refuesed -
invalid header checks.
What's assp standard for extended error codes ?
Marrco wrote:
I didn't notice someone changed the wrong old default :)
do you suggest just a 550 o something like 550 5.7.1 Message refuesed -
invalid header checks.
What's assp standard for extended error codes ?
SMTP status codes are fully detailed in the wiki article:
From: Matti Haack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But if the spammer retries, he will be accepted for a smtp handshake.
If it fails (Bad Helo, Errorrs etc.) he will be dropped and PB
score will rise and his Greyliting entry is deleted, so he has to try
at least 2 more times.
Are they RBL tested
Are the RBL requests sent before the TCP ACK is sent back to the connecting
mail server?
I was thinking that this would slow spammers down due to the 10 half open
connection limit on XP. I'm assuming that most spam senders are trojan'ed
here. This would open ASSP up to causing a denial of service
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Are they RBL tested again?
why not?
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get
Are the RBL requests sent before the TCP ACK is sent back to the
connecting
mail server?
??
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated
No. That would prevent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of brougham
Baker
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:31 PM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: [Assp-user] RBL Timing
Are the RBL requests sent
From: Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Are they RBL tested again?
why not?
I can't think of a reason why not.
I was hoping they would be checked again as they may now be on one of the
RBL lists.
Bro
Opps. Would prevent the adding of such mail to the corpus.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dickson,
Paul
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] RBL
When I looked into it some time ago I settled for this:
554 5.7.1 Your email appears to be spam -- send an error report to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or call +12.34.56.78.90
I don't remember what my reasons were for preferring this one though...
I was hoping they would be checked again as they may now be on one of
the
RBL lists.
There is obvious a complete misunderstanding what part
delaying/greylisting plays.
It has *nothing* to do with any checks ASSP is doing after the message
is accepted.
2007/2/2, Wim Borghs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I looked into it some time ago I settled for this:
554 5.7.1 Your email appears to be spam -- send an error report to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or call +12.34.56.78.90
I don't remember what my reasons were for preferring this one though...
I remember
32 matches
Mail list logo
