On Sa, 27.11.2004, 03:43, Stephen Gran wrote:
...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I understand your misgivings, beause
people implementing most anything can manage to do it in a really stupid,
painful and harmful way. That doesn't necessarily mean the idea is
unsound. Greylisting is,
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Christian Storch wrote:
I disagree here.
Well, unless there is nobody with a clue working for the spammers, and given
how much money this scum have at their disposal, I find that unlikely...
greylisting IS an one-shot tool.
But if the majority would use it and they (the
On Friday 26 November 2004 03.34, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
plug
And, of course, postgrey as the very first line of defense.
/plug
Coupled with the usual checking on HELO (blocking 'localhost' HELOs and
my own IP does
On Fr, 26.11.2004, 03:34, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
plug
And, of course, postgrey as the very first line of defense.
/plug
Coupled with the usual checking on HELO (blocking 'localhost' HELOs and
my
own IP does wonders!), SMTP
* Christian Storch:
Things which increase the load on the remote mail servers are *bad*.
That would include responding with temporary errors unnecessairly and
adding unnecessary delays in communication. pipelining by itself isn't
necessairly terrible- adding things like 2 minute delays is
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Christian Storch wrote:
What about greylisting depending on results of e.g. SA?
Only above a limit of scores from SA greylisting would be become active.
Use as many RBLs instead of the SA score, but use them not for blocking but
for activating
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:57:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Christian Storch:
Things which increase the load on the remote mail servers are *bad*.
That would include responding with temporary errors unnecessairly and
adding unnecessary delays in communication. pipelining by itself isn't
George Georgalis schrieb/wrote/a écrit/escribió:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:57:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Christian Storch:
What about greylisting depending on results of e.g. SA?
Only above a limit of scores from SA greylisting would be become active.
This is very impolite because
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 26 November 2004 03.34, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
plug
And, of course, postgrey as the very first line of defense.
/plug
Coupled with the usual
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 26 November 2004 03.34, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And, of course, postgrey as the very first line
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
That's a *terrible* and just plain stupid assumption. Queue size makes
a difference to me, both on a machine I run for some friends and in the
part-time work that I do for a small ISP (which, hey,
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
A sensible greylisting scheme will auto-whitelist a sending IP after
so many whitelisted entries (successful retries) - the only point of
greylisting is that we know that the remote end won't retry in
Quoting Robert Vangel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have been seeing a few (quite a few.. due to the amount of lists I am
subscribed to) messages in my postfix log's about
murphy.debian.org[146.82.138.6] being blocked due to being present in
spamhaus.org's SBL list.
Now it is in Spamcop's list:
On Thursday 25 November 2004 10.50, Lupe Christoph wrote:
Now it is in Spamcop's list:
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblockip=146.82.138.6
spamcop does explicitly not recommend using their RBL for blocking - they
know why. That's the downside of a fully automated system.
Every
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:50:19AM +0100, Lupe Christoph wrote:
I have removed bl.spamcop.net from our RBLs. Alas Spamcop does not
publish a contact mail address to tell them they have done something
Stoopid(tm).
[snip]
Since Spamcop does not talk to lowly insignificant users, can the
listmaster
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
plug
And, of course, postgrey as the very first line of defense.
/plug
Coupled with the usual checking on HELO (blocking 'localhost' HELOs and my
own IP does wonders!), SMTP protocol conformance (pipelining), sender
I have been seeing a few (quite a few.. due to the amount of lists I am
subscribed to) messages in my postfix log's about
murphy.debian.org[146.82.138.6] being blocked due to being present in
spamhaus.org's SBL list.
Going to spamhaus and entering 146.82.138.6 shows that it isn't in fact
in
17 matches
Mail list logo
