Le 6 mars 2015 à 00:48, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org a écrit :
All anti-spam tools require configuration and updating.
Updating (via the FreeBSD ports system or the various linux package
management tools) should be fairly painless for any antispam tool
you choose, or at least they
All anti-spam tools require configuration and updating.
Updating (via the FreeBSD ports system or the various linux package
management tools) should be fairly painless for any antispam tool
you choose, or at least they should all have a similar level of pain.
Amavisd-new does not stand out as
I am quite surprised that no one has anything to say about this…
;-?
G.B.
Le 5 mars 2015 à 19:17, b...@todoo.biz a écrit :
Hi,
I am currently using postfix with amavisd + spamassassin on FreeBSD.
I have also SPF implemented with some py module.
It is working quite well but I
Hey,
I know it can be quite cumbersome but are you using a flat file for
managing amavisd and policies or are using mysql backend?
I have found putting all the policies, domains, managment, blacklists etc..
into mysql to be a much better way to manage it. Then you can use a tool
like phpmyadmin
Hello,
Your mileage likely will be different, but I stopped using (content-based)
spam filtering tools altogether several years ago (previously used
SpamAssassin and then DSPAM) in favor of a (rather conservative) set of
Postfix smtpd restrictions (including Spamhaus DNSBL).
One
Hi,
I am currently using postfix with amavisd + spamassassin on FreeBSD.
I have also SPF implemented with some py module.
It is working quite well but I found the management and update of amavisd quite
heavy !
I wanted to know what you were using out there in order to filter efficiently
Hi,
I am a newbie to postfix and have a basic configuration question. I am setting
up a simple listserv on the same server as Postfix, and have successfully setup
inbound mail to be sent through a clouds based spam filter (Symantec cloud).
However, I am having trouble setting up Postfix to
* Futchko, Rose rose.futc...@informs.org:
Hi,
I am a newbie to postfix and have a basic configuration question. I am
setting up a simple listserv on the same server as Postfix, and have
successfully setup inbound mail to be sent through a clouds based spam
filter (Symantec cloud). However,
qpsmtpd is
written entirely in perl. I know of an org that's running a million
inbound messages/day through qpsmtpd on a pretty low end dual socket
Proliant server, with full pre-queue spam filtering including
SpamAssassin. Actually a million a day on two such MXen, 2 million
total. They reject
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:22:51PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message 20101107091813.21bf5104...@camomile.cloud9.net,
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Does anyone have an already-developed policd, either available as
freeware or for sale that implements the above (rate
In message 4cd55507.4090...@hardwarefreak.com,
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
...
2. Policyd
- per user rate limiting
- per user send quota
I am really quite interested in finding out if there is any pre-canned
stuff available to implement the above.
Does anyone
In message fe3e1ee3-9718-427c-8523-fdaf51099...@kapu.net,
Michael J Wise mjw...@kapu.net wrote:
I believe you can set per user rate limits using policyd.
Problem is, they don't.
The mailbox is on THEIR system.
And however much we beg, plead or whine, some of our customers don't
share their
In message bf4752ac-9335-480f-a1a7-7ac534ff0...@resetbypeer.com,
Will Fong seekw...@resetbypeer.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another
Le 07/11/2010 09:27, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit :
In message4cd55507.4090...@hardwarefreak.com,
Stan Hoeppners...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
...
2. Policyd
- per user rate limiting
- per user send quota
I am really quite interested in finding out if there is any pre-canned
Hello again friends. Long time no see.
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
non-Posfix based e-mail service.
For the sake of
Ronald F. Guilmette:
Hello again friends. Long time no see.
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
non-Posfix based
On Nov 6, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Hello again friends. Long time no see.
No, we were speaking yesterday, as I recall...
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion...
Well, yes.
... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing
Michael J Wise put forth on 11/6/2010 9:53 AM:
But since RFG is taking a crash course in outflow filtering, I also would be
VERY interested in whatever suggestions the list membership might have about
ways to do it well.
Currently, the service where I am employed uses automated processing
On Nov 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'm guessing your perspective is going to be different that most users
on this list, who are, I'm guessing, not ISPs or service providers per
se.
Yeah.
We have about a thousand servers currently doing mail classification.
Thus, I'm guessing
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
non-Posfix based e-mail service.
On 2010-06-23 12:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
reject_unauth_destination
permit_sasl_authenticated
Under most circumstances, reject_unauth_destination should go *after*
permit_sasl_authenticated, or your sasl authenticated
---
From: Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:34:09 -0500
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Spam filtering
Steffan A. Cline put forth on 6/22/2010 8:01 PM:
It's a long post. Sorry.
Yeah, it was long, and probably overly
...@hldns.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:39:04 -0700
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Spam filtering
Stan,
Thanks for the quick reply. All I can say is WOW.
I did poke around on this CentOS install and am not seeing a config file
like you have but perhaps this is it:
[r
On 23 Jun 2010, at 06:34, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
DKIM checks are pretty much useless for killing spam
Currently true, but hopefully soon to change… Spamhaus is releasing two new
DNSWLs in about 4 weeks time, one of which specifically validates DKIM domains
against a list of verified known good
I am using postfix with Virtualmin and am trying to follow numerous
tutorials on spam prevention/handling. I have tried to apply the following
to the postfix main.cf file.
smtpd_delay_reject = yes
smtpd_helo_required = yes
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
Steffan A. Cline put forth on 6/22/2010 8:01 PM:
It's a long post. Sorry.
Yeah, it was long, and probably overly ambitious for a single thread topic.
Instead of addressing your questions about individual main.cf parameter
settings and policy services, I'm going to make a few suggestions which
Ok, I started down this path a while back and left it on the shelf -
but now I'm back on the case, but I'm still baffled and don't know where else
to ask.
If you'd point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. I'll
also include the problem here so you can take a crack at it too.
---
In
outbound spam
filtering following these rules (it's a bit more complicated than this,
but this is the big picture):
- Spam scoring (Spamassassin). If spam:
- Put the mail on hold
- Add an iptables rule rejecting the IP
- Notify postmaster/abuse
Also,
* Implement ratelimits both inside postfix
Hi,
we are trying to mitigate the impact of having infected users, brute
force hacked webmail accounts etc. sending (larging amounts of) outbound
spam.
The best idea we've come up with so far is to perform outbound spam
filtering following these rules (it's a bit more complicated than
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:40 +0100, Vegard Svanberg wrote:
Hi,
we are trying to mitigate the impact of having infected users, brute
force hacked webmail accounts etc. sending (larging amounts of) outbound
spam.
The best idea we've come up with so far is to perform outbound spam
Vegard Svanberg a écrit :
Hi,
we are trying to mitigate the impact of having infected users, brute
force hacked webmail accounts etc. sending (larging amounts of) outbound
spam.
The best idea we've come up with so far is to perform outbound spam
filtering following these rules (it's
spam
filtering following these rules (it's a bit more complicated than this,
but this is the big picture):
- Spam scoring (Spamassassin). If spam:
- Put the mail on hold
- Add an iptables rule rejecting the IP
- Notify postmaster/abuse
Also,
* Implement ratelimits both inside postfix
Phill Macey a écrit :
2009/11/7 mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net:
Most statistical anti-spam filters assume an inbound model. you can use
a global bayes setup, but then I don't think you'll benefit from
dspam/bogo/...
Could you turn the outgoing mail around and make it inbound mail as
well?
setup, but then I don't think you'll benefit from
dspam/bogo/...
Could you turn the outgoing mail around and make it inbound mail as
well? eg. Could you make use of 'always_bcc' to copy all outgoing
messages to an address on another postfix instance somewhere and then
run the spam filtering over
Zitat von Alex m...@deltaindigo.ro:
Hi
The trust in my own users led me to his post. The users are
ignorant (not all, but..). No one care about how send , what send,
where send , thei just wnat to send more and more .
I don't trust anyone and my server too.
I know that the
Hi
The trust in my own users led me to his post. The users are ignorant
(not all, but..). No one care about how send , what send, where send ,
thei just wnat to send more and more .
I don't trust anyone and my server too.
I know that the outbound filtering is different. My
ego...@ramattack.net wrote:
Hi
The trust in my own users led me to his post. The users are ignorant
(not all, but..). No one care about how send , what send, where send ,
thei just wnat to send more and more .
I don't trust anyone and my server too.
I know that the
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Alex m...@deltaindigo.ro:
Hi
The trust in my own users led me to his post. The users are
ignorant (not all, but..). No one care about how send , what send,
where send , thei just wnat to send more and more .
I don't trust anyone and my server
ram wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 11:47 +0200, Alex wrote:
Hello
This is my first post on this list. I have a atypical configuration like :
- an MX server for inbound mails; this server is configured virtual
domains, graylisting , antivirus and antispam for all incoming mails; it
Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote:
Hi,
I think outgoing scans are a little different. You have some
advantages and disadvantages respect incoming mail scanning.
Advantages are that you know you're users and more or less what they
do or you have it controlled with some scripts. So you can
An ISP that I do work for recently had an acocunt on their CommuniGatePro
server hijacked by a spammer. Of course this got them on the blacklist of
AOL, Yahoo and others. There are three inbound Postfix relay servers for
blacklisting that are in front of three Barracuda spam filters. I am
David Koski a écrit :
An ISP that I do work for recently had an acocunt on their CommuniGatePro
server hijacked by a spammer. Of course this got them on the blacklist of
AOL, Yahoo and others. There are three inbound Postfix relay servers for
blacklisting that are in front of three
42 matches
Mail list logo
