[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/14/24 8:07 AM, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote: On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 11:34 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix- users wrote: >> On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users >> wrote: >>> I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With >>>

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 07:52 -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: > I used an access list to redirect all email from them to a spam > folder. Elegant solution, of this I approve. > Turns out I was asked to block the emails users had

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 11:34 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix- users wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > > wrote: > > > I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking.  With > > > firewall

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/14/24 4:18 AM, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote: On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 10:51 -0500, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: > On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: >> Good info. >> >> This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for >> it. >> I tried

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking.  With firewall rules there's not sufficient forensic evidence left behind. On 14.02.24 19:11, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote: Here's a tip - try the 'LOG'

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 10:51 -0500, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: > On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: > > Good info. > > > > This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for > > it. > > I tried just

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-14 Thread Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:21:10AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users > wrote: > > > I use fail2ban as well. I'm just going to see if the sender sever > > will give > >

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-08 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 12:53 PM, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: On 2/7/24 12:15 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:21:10AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: I use fail2ban as well. I'm just going to see if the sender sever will give up! I prefer to

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Fred Morris via Postfix-users
Here are a couple more jails + filters. Be aware that email can wrap things. The first failregex is three lines, the second one is one line (the lines end in "\b") -- Fred Morris, internet plumber -- :: jail.d/pf-connect.local :: [pf-connect] enabled = true findtime

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 12:56 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: On 2/7/24 10:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: postscreen is great against bots, but fail2ban with firwall are still better against abusers. On 07.02.24 10:52, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: And

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 10:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: postscreen is great against bots, but fail2ban with firwall are still better against abusers. On 07.02.24 10:52, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: And once you get the "Aha!" insight into how its configuration works, it's

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 12:15 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:21:10AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: I use fail2ban as well. I'm just going to see if the sender sever will give up! I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With firewall rules

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:21:10AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: > I use fail2ban as well. I'm just going to see if the sender sever will give > up! I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With firewall rules there's not sufficient forensic evidence left behind. --

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 10:51 AM, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: Good info. This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for it. I tried just rejecting the email address. But they just change it. So I blocked the IP, they have

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 10:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: On 07.02.24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for it. I tried just rejecting the email address. But they just change it. So I blocked the IP, they have

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 10:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: postscreen is great against bots, but fail2ban with firwall are still better against abusers. And once you get the "Aha!" insight into how its configuration works, it's actually not difficult to set up. -- Phil Stracchino

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users
On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: Good info. This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for it. I tried just rejecting the email address. But they just change it. So I blocked the IP, they have several. Have you considered blocking the *domain* with a 50x

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 07.02.24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for it. I tried just rejecting the email address. But they just change it. So I blocked the IP, they have several. I have watched them do constant connections over and over. 20

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
Good info. This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for it. I tried just rejecting the email address. But they just change it. So I blocked the IP, they have several. I have watched them do constant connections over and over. 20 then pause the 20 again and again. I think

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 07:59:44AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: > Do mail servers as a whole stop sending an email after a few errors? For a single message, surer On soft errors (4XX), most retry, typically stopping after a maximal delay. The retry strategy varies, but

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread John Hill via Postfix-users
I figured. I block on the ingress so it is minimal network but maximum pain in the A$$. Thanks. On 2/7/24 8:06 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: On 07.02.24 07:59, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: Do mail servers as a whole stop sending an email after a few errors?

[pfx] Re: Server etiquette

2024-02-07 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 07.02.24 07:59, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote: Do mail servers as a whole stop sending an email after a few errors? abusers never stop, others possibly. I have a server I have blocked in my firewall. It continues to try and is blocked as many as 4000+ times a day. If postscreen was