if you can't figure this out, no shame.
then in main.cf
debug_peer_level = 1
debug_peer_list =
... read this from man postconf :
debug_peer_list (default: empty)
Optional list of remote client or server hostname or network address
patterns that cause the verbose logging level to increase
I have the same issues.
Ips that i have put still get there. Right now I have issues
with 58.33 and 222.65
I have them in the mta_clients_bw.map and doing a postmap -q
comes back and says
554 acl mta_bw
but they still get thru.
If I lookin the log it shows the email coming in and says
. This is
one of them.
Paul Fuhrmeister
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 10:56 AM
To: IMGate@mgw2.MEIway.com
Subject: [IMGate] Re: mta_clients_bw.map not working the way I
Mail17# postmap -q 64.200.217. hash:mta_clients_bw.map
554 ACL client_bw
where do you get that IP from?
Spam has almost doubled for us in the last 5 days. We started looking at the
IP Numbers of the sending servers. We've found some class c's sending
nothing but spam that don't seem to be
Mail17# postmap -q 64.200.217. hash:mta_clients_bw.map
554 ACL client_bw
where do you get that IP from?
I know their upstream provider (64.200.217.0/21) I'll mention
to the abuse team to check them out.
If you have any others in the 64.200.x.x space, post them.
64.200.217. is the only
, 2005 3:24 PM
To: IMGate@mgw2.MEIway.com
Subject: [IMGate] Re: mta_clients_bw.map not working the way I expect
%egrep -i 96F6E30F4B maillog
Nov 11 01:55:35 mail17 postfix/smtpd[96457]: 96F6E30F4B:
client=a.lahealthfast.com[64.200.217.195]
Nov 11 01:55:35 mail17 postfix/smtpd[96457]: 96F6E30F4B
So we can't block an entire class c?
man 5 transport
blocking by Class A, B, C works fine, always has
a.b.c 554
Len
On Friday, November 11, 2005, 18:03:15, Paul Fuhrmeister wrote:
So we can't block an entire class c?
Note: 64.200.217.195 is *NOT* a Class 'C' address, its a Class 'A'
address. If you're going to invoke classful nomenclature you're going to
inherit all the other networking baggage that
Len Conrad wrote:
So we can't block an entire class c?
man 5 transport
blocking by Class A, B, C works fine, always has
a.b.c 554
maybe it's the trailing . in his entries.
try it without the trailing dot.
OR you could use a CIDR table for these entries. But this would involve
Rod Dorman wrote:
On Friday, November 11, 2005, 18:03:15, Paul Fuhrmeister wrote:
So we can't block an entire class c?
Note: 64.200.217.195 is *NOT* a Class 'C' address, its a Class 'A'
address. If you're going to invoke classful nomenclature you're going to
inherit all the other
10 matches
Mail list logo
