Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
mouss pisze:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after
mouss escreveu:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the
Juergen P. Meier escreveu:
SAV is a nice idea if run against a limited set of trusted domains (who's
postmasters expclitly allow you to perform these Lookups), but it's not
such a good idea in general.
If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
would *double*. I
On 2/10/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
Right now, I'm preparing my top 10 domains used in spam and enabling SAV
for those.
Do you have their PERMISSION? If not, then DON'T... otherwise you risk
getting BLACKLISTED. I know that *I* will blackilist you for doing this,
Charles Marcus escreveu:
On 2/10/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
Right now, I'm preparing my top 10 domains used in spam and enabling SAV
for those.
Do you have their PERMISSION? If not, then DON'T... otherwise you risk
getting BLACKLISTED. I know that *I*
Juergen P. Meier:
If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
would *double*. I bet most heavy duty mailssystems don't scale double.
Go ahead and make my day. What is the basis for this claim?
Wietse
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
there's no reason not to use reject_unverified
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:05 +
Jo__o Miguel Neves joao.ne...@intraneia.com wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading
João Miguel Neves wrote:
The SAV check in postfix is done with the postmaster address by default.
Recent postfix (2.5 and newer) use $double_bounce_sender as
the default for address_verify_sender. This recipient is
always valid, never delivered.
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that there's no reason not to
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
there's no reason
Paweł Leśniak escreveu:
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
[snip]
Well, to be honest, I believe you did. If you will do many checks to the
same server (have on mind large ISPs with many domains) with different
emails, then probably your server will get blacklisted to send email
from postmaster@ (at least). If you want
mouss escreveu:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My
Jo??o Miguel Neves:
Pawe? Le?niak escreveu:
Jo?o Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means your GL
server need to
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
[snip]
let me fork a little: SAV on _header_ addresses is plain dumb:
Dec 15 11:25:33 imlil postmx/smtpd[23878]: NOQUEUE: warn: RCPT from
chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de[217.146.130.193]: Transaction logged:
PTR=chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de; from=spamch...@bnv-bamberg.de
On 2/10/2009 1:49 PM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
mouss pisze:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by
Charles Marcus escreveu:
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries
On 2/9/2009 9:36 AM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
That would mean that the most useful use of SAV is negated. Or is there
some prior arrangement that would allow me to do that to hotmail.com,
gmail.com, yahoo.com*?
I'm going to reduce the target domains, but is there a known agreement
with MS,
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of mouss
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2009 8:39 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: reject_unverified_sender vs greylisting
João Miguel Neves a écrit
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:36:25PM +, João Miguel Neves wrote:
That would mean that the most useful use of SAV is negated. Or is there
some prior arrangement that would allow me to do that to hotmail.com,
gmail.com, yahoo.com*?
Some Mailproviders explicitly forbid the use of SAV against
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:15:06AM +0100, Juergen P. Meier wrote:
If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
would *double*. I bet most heavy duty mailssystems don't scale double.
An address probe is MUCH cheaper to process than a message. Address
probe results are
Good evening,
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by _AT_):
Feb 8 07:56:49 atlas postfix/smtpd[25949]:
Jo?o Miguel Neves:
Good evening,
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by _AT_):
Feb 8 07:56:49 atlas
28 matches
Mail list logo
