Title: qmail, avoid spam mail
Hello
recently, i found that someone using my qmail server to send mail.
how can i avoid this?
thanks
regards
KY
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:28:53 +0800, KY Lui [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello recently, i found that someone using my qmail server to send
mail. how can i avoid this?
1. Include logs in your mail
2. Tell us how they used your qmail server to send mail
3. Reinstall using www.lifewithqmail.org
--
http://www.codegnome.org/scripting/showscript.php?script=qacct.sh
--
Work: It's not just a job, it's an indenture.
Hi,
Got this spam without TO; or CC: Can someone explain how it got to me when none
of my working email addresses appears in the source info?
Where in the Qmail setup files can I set the SMTP handshake, not to accept email
without a To: or Cc Header (RULESET ? )
al
--
Al Green
Al Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got this spam without TO; or CC: Can someone explain how it got to me
when none of my working email addresses appears in the source info?
The contents of the message (including the headers) don't matter -- it's
the envelope recipient address which controls
) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: Qmail-scanner or spam problem??
Hi, in the last few days, I have been getting about 30-50 of the following
error messages daily related to qmail-scanner whereas I used to get only
about 10 a day
Hi,
Please excuse if this is an easy one to do but, we run a few Large QMAIL
1.03 servers and would like to try and control the Mail-From address our
clients are using.
We have qmail configured using tcpserver and our clients IP addresses are
listed in the tcp.smtp (tcpserver allowed
the envelope sender address for certain messages to something outside
of your control (like a Hotmail account) if they're mailing a company they
don't trust not to spam them.
We have qmail configured using tcpserver and our clients IP addresses are
listed in the tcp.smtp (tcpserver allowed
designed
to significantly reduce (or eliminate) the amount of SPAM/UCE you
receive by using unique, cryptographically enhanced (called tagged)
e-mail addresses. TMDA can both filter your incoming e-mail, and tag
your outgoing address.
For more information, download locations, and installation
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:09:31PM -0400, Roger Merchberger wrote:
[...]
My main concern is rejecting real email using RBL... I recall hearing
folks having problems with that in the past. Has RBL improved on the false
positives problem?
There is no such thing as an RBL false positive; any
also send legitimate mail -- that's the nature of the beast. Very few
spam relays are used _only_ as spam relays.
If you want a better chance of not blocking mail you care about, perhaps start
with the DUL (dialup list). It only lists the IP addresses which ISPs have
voluntarily submitted
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 June 2001 23:31
To: x
Subject: Attention!...
disgusting spam snipped
Michael Grier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I got about 100 failure notices bounced to me as postmaster.
Today I got an abuse notice from my server provider. So this spammer
must be able to relay through me somehow. Qmail has been working for me
for over a year. Is anybody else having
- Original Message -
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Qmailt and spam
Michael Grier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I got about 100 failure notices bounced to me as
postmaster.
Today I got an abuse
The spammer seems to somehow be using the user qmailt as the
originator.
A copy follows. uid 12355 is the user qmailt.
There is no such user in a normal qmail install.
Are you sure they didn't get into your system another way? A broken
formmail
CGI, or something else?
I've now found
Michael Grier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The spammer seems to somehow be using the user qmailt as the originator.
A copy follows. uid 12355 is the user qmailt.
There is no such user in a normal qmail install.
Are you sure they didn't get into your system another way? A broken
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
I really don't want to patch reinstall qmail with the RBL... (and it
seems ORBS went away...) Besides, I'm really only looking to stop the big
chunks
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:15:04PM -0400, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
RBL?
I really don't want to patch reinstall qmail with the RBL
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:15:04PM -0400, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
I really don't want to patch reinstall qmail with the RBL... (and it
seems
Roger Merchberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
I really don't want to patch reinstall qmail with the RBL... (and it
seems ORBS went away...) Besides
Most of the big chunks of spam come from big guys
utilizing little guys' servers as they find them
open to relay. So you're best off using the various
MAPS lists, especially the RSS (relay spam stopper).
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Roger Merchberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
* Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010620 18:34]:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:15:04PM -0400, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
RBL?
http
Roger Merchberger writes:
Kindof an offtopic question, but is there a Master List of IP's that send
spam regularly, with which I could use to update my tcprules deny list?
I really don't want to patch reinstall qmail with the RBL... (and it
seems ORBS went away...) Besides, I'm really
I am attempting to figure out the best way to set up an auto-response
(bounce, in a manner of speaking) triggered by sender domain, in order to
facilitate not just rejecting specific domains, but auto-answering mail from
them.
The situation is as follows: My company receives mail from vary
After some thought, perhaps I shoud clarify what I am trying to do. I have
looked and looked, and seems most every feature for filtering relies on
.qmail files, or something like procmail. I would like to determine if there
is a way to avoid both of these. Since the machines in question
Mike Culbertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be great would be to have qmail-smtpd catch the HELO or MAIL FROM
address the sender gives (a la badmailfrom) and do something, like perhaps
dump the mail to a local account for further processing, or initiate a
bounce, anything other
Roger Walker wrote:
You Wrote:
Please let know if you find a way to block all of the domains you mentioned.
Also do you think someone like arin.net would have there blocks of ips on
file and then we can just block them ?
I believe IANA has the master list of IP blocks that
Mike Culbertson wrote:
Therefore, I would like to maintain a list of domains a la
badmailfrom, but rather than doing an smtp reject, an autoreponse would
result (your mail has been reject because blah, please contact blah etc.
etc. ). This way, legitimate users on banned domains would have
.
They originate from a different address that traced to .kr or .cn or
some other unfriendly country, so you can't email their provider to
turn them off.
They also relay from a different relay each time.
Every time they start these campaigns I get their spam for a few days,
then every email address on their list
: Re: Spam Removal
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:13:51 -0500, Jeremy Suo-Anttila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have already done this and yes i do have pop b4 smtp setup and running so
i am not asking about me being a relay as some people on the list think.
Does anyone know a good how to or site where i can
You Wrote:
Please let know if you find a way to block all of the domains you mentioned.
Also do you think someone like arin.net would have there blocks of ips on
file and then we can just block them ?
I believe IANA has the master list of IP blocks that lists where
they are assigned to
Hi,
...
I am considering screening out ALL .cn and .kr mailservers. Is there
an easy way to do that?
how about the badmailfrom-file. I think append/inserting .cn and .kr to/in
that file and all mails from that top-level domains will be rejected.
Regards,
Ruprecht
Ruprecht Helms wrote:
Hi,
...
I am considering screening out ALL .cn and .kr mailservers. Is there
an easy way to do that?
how about the badmailfrom-file. I think append/inserting .cn and .kr to/in
that file and all mails from that top-level domains will be rejected.
Regards,
I keep getting sent SPAM from this company based in CA trying to sell me a
MasterDisc 2000 which i know is a scam i have followed all there procedures
to remove my domains from there lists and they went and actaully added them
and more to there lists so i ave been getting flooded with there crap
Jeremy Suo-Anttila wrote:
I keep getting sent SPAM from this company based in CA trying to sell me a
MasterDisc 2000 which i know is a scam i have followed all there procedures
to remove my domains from there lists and they went and actaully added them
and more to there lists so i ave been
Bruno This should be in the archives. The RSS people dropped the
Bruno text records, because of problems with the DNS server they
Bruno use has handling the large number of text records. For a
Bruno short time there was a mirror, but they started charging
Bruno and the person
Jeremy Suo-Anttila wrote:
I keep getting sent SPAM from this company based in CA trying to sell me a
MasterDisc 2000 which i know is a scam i have followed all there procedures
to remove my domains from there lists and they went and actaully added them
and more to there lists so i ave been
sent SPAM from this company based in CA trying to sell me
a
MasterDisc 2000 which i know is a scam i have followed all there
procedures
to remove my domains from there lists and they went and actaully added
them
and more to there lists so i ave been getting flooded with there crap
mails.
I
Chris Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is pingable at
Stephen Bosch wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is
Chris Johnson wrote:
I tried the above *with* the patch, and it didn't work either. I don't
think it's working right anymore. My system fails the RSS test at Russ
Nelson's site.
Which is because the RSS people removed Russ's IP address from their database.
Oh -- really? They don't
Stephen Bosch writes:
Chris Johnson wrote:
I tried the above *with* the patch, and it didn't work either. I don't
think it's working right anymore. My system fails the RSS test at Russ
Nelson's site.
Which is because the RSS people removed Russ's IP address from their
Hi,
How i can do this task and how configure the software ?
I have a system pop before smtp.
When user [EMAIL PROTECTED] use with pop before smtp my smtp server he
can send only e-mail to his domain (in this exemple domain.com) or to
domain2.com.
When user specify for smtp server a password
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is pingable at
210.5.235.148.relays.mail-abuse.org
My qmail setup is reasonably similar to that within life with qmail,
and,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400,
Brent B. Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
This should be in the archives. The RSS people dropped the text records,
because of
Bruno == Bruno Wolff, Bruno writes:
Bruno On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers
Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the
relay
Bruno This should
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is pingable at
210.5.235.148.relays.mail-abuse.org
My
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:30:52AM -0500, q question wrote:
I know the qmail documentation says that the default for qmail is not to
relay. I need to see proof, not just be told to assume that the
documentation is correct. As I said above, I'll need time to reflect on
this.
You only
Charles,
1) What are the erroneous assumptions of the Prodygy relay test utility?
2) How is it so clear that the machine didn't relay mail?
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:52:51 -0600
Eduardo
q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) What are the erroneous assumptions of the Prodygy relay test utility?
It assumes that because the RCPT TO: ... command succeeded, the mail will be
delivered. This is not required by RFC821/2821, and is not true of qmail or
any other MTA which does not
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:06:00 -0600
q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) What are the erroneous assumptions of the Prodygy relay test utility?
It assumes that because the RCPT
From: q question [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:30:52 -0500
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:06:00 -0600
It's also making some broken assumptions about how certain conventions
q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know the qmail documentation says that the default for qmail is not to
relay. I need to see proof, not just be told to assume that the
documentation is correct.
The proper proof is to try to relay yourself, and see if the message makes
it to its
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:30:52AM -0500, q question wrote:
SNIP
2) How is it so clear that the machine didn't relay mail?
-these types of questions come up every week on this mailing list
-qmail has _never_ relayed mail unless the administrator specifically
configures it to do so.
I
Unless the network is lying to me again, Chris Garrigues said:
The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that
user%host2host1 or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1
to user@host2.
Certainly software that does this is broken,
If anyone cares, this used to be
I appreciate your pointing this out.
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: q question [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:24:49 -0500
From: q question [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:30:52 -0500
What should convince you to ignore those tests is that they are providing a
diagnosis (Relay attempt succeeded) which is patently false (it isn't a
successful relay unless the mail makes it to the final destination, and
they
aren't even actually sending the mail, just testing the RCPT TO:
You don't need to look for any bugs to eat!
I haven't installed qmail yet, I'm still in the planning stages. I wanted to
know how to test for relays and I appreciate your points.
Thanks! :)
From: Greg White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations
Alan Clegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that
user%host2host1 or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1
to user@host2.
If anyone cares, this used to be completely legal and actually, a very
useful way of doing things. There were
Greetz,
I've tested my qmail smtp server for spam using the Prodygy Solutions
relay test utility:
http://www.prodigysolutions.com/services/relay_test.php
And got 2(two) holes on my server:
* I'll omit the domain for security reasons of course.
Relay test 7
MAIL FROM:([EMAIL PROTECTED
Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tested my qmail smtp server for spam using the Prodygy Solutions
relay test utility:
[...]
And got 2(two) holes on my server:
No, you don't. Your machine didn't relay mail, and the tests (hah!) didn't
even actually do any testing
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Greetz,
I've tested my qmail smtp server for spam using the Prodygy Solutions
relay test utility:
http://www.prodigysolutions.com/services/relay_test.php
And got 2(two) holes on my server:
* I'll omit the domain for security reasons
systems designed
to significantly reduce (or eliminate) the amount of SPAM/UCE you
receive by using unique, cryptographically enhanced (called tagged)
e-mail addresses. TMDA can both filter your incoming e-mail, and tag
your outgoing address.
For more information, download locations, and installation
You know... the virus, I don't mind qmail-scanner-queue.pl
places it quietly and calmly into the quarantine, sends me and email, and
we all get on with our lives. The part that sucks is the hordes of email
notices to the list about the virus from every anti-viral program on the
to significantly reduce (or eliminate) the amount of SPAM/UCE
you receive by using unique, cryptographically enhanced (called
tagged) e-mail addresses. TMDA can both filter your incoming e-mail,
and tag your outgoing address.
For complete information, visit the TMDA homepage:
URL:http
hello, sorry for the off topic post.
real quick; had a server x.x.x.110 running sendmail.
getting complaints of spam originating from that box.
removed IP, still getting complaints.
turned system off, still getting complaints.
Can an IP be spoofed so totally in mail headers?
headers:
Received
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 04:00:32PM -0500, mick wrote:
hello, sorry for the off topic post.
real quick; had a server x.x.x.110 running sendmail.
getting complaints of spam originating from that box.
removed IP, still getting complaints.
turned system off, still getting complaints.
Can
running sendmail.
getting complaints of spam originating from that box.
removed IP, still getting complaints.
turned system off, still getting complaints.
Can an IP be spoofed so totally in mail headers?
headers:
Received: from mailserv01.dartgc.com ([207.34.255.70
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 04:00:32PM -0500, mick wrote:
hello, sorry for the off topic post.
real quick; had a server x.x.x.110 running sendmail.
getting complaints of spam originating from that box.
removed IP, still getting complaints.
turned
mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can an IP be spoofed so totally in mail headers?
Short answer: yes. Spammers are getting better at spoofing mail headers, as
misguided "spam protection" features in MTAs force them to.
Long answer: can't analyze the situation properly when you mu
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can an IP be spoofed so totally in mail headers?
Short answer: yes. Spammers are getting better at spoofing mail headers, as
misguided "spam protection" features in MTAs force them to.
Long answ
From: mick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:00:54 -0500 (CDT)
hello, sorry for the off topic post.
real quick; had a server x.x.x.110 running sendmail.
getting complaints of spam originating from that box.
removed IP, still getting complaints.
turned system off, still
Some of you might be familiar with Thomas Erskine's ``Tagged Message
Sender''. I've been using this software for a few weeks now and have
attempted to document in detail both the program itself and also my
particular use of it.
URL:http://jason.mastaler.com/tms/
Enjoy,
Jason
We currently use rblsmtpd to block mail based on RSS, DUL and RBL. What
I've wanted all along is a way for individual users to have this same
ability, rather than as a system-wide setting. Here's what I've come up
with, and I'd appreciate criticisms and comments from my fellow qmail
admins:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 02:42:53PM -0800, Jon Rust wrote:
We currently use rblsmtpd to block mail based on RSS, DUL and RBL. What
I've wanted all along is a way for individual users to have this same
ability, rather than as a system-wide setting. Here's what I've come up
with, and I'd
Somebody's stupid e-mail address harvester can't tell the difference between an
e-mail address and a Message-ID header. The result is that a lot of spam is
sent to addresses like [EMAIL PROTECTED], which came from the the Message-ID
header ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) of a message that I once sent
In the previous episode (03.03.2001), Chris Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What I'd like to do is collect all of this mail in a Maildir, so I can
avoid
all the double bounces. What I propose to do is put this in
~alias/.qmail-default:
|condredirect messageidspam sh -c "echo "$DEFAULT" | egrep
"Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald
I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and allowing relaying
only for IP addresses that belong to my network (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
here is that it's one of my customers who has an application that is sending
out all this
On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
"Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald
I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and allowing relaying
only for IP addresses that belong to my network (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
here is that it's one of my customers who has an
Vince Vielhaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty. The address
you see in the From line is part of the data.
You are correct - my apologies. I claim lack of caffeine.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
OK Vince, what will work?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:10 PM
To: Jenny Holmberg
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spam filter
On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
"Brian Longwe" [EMAIL
-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:10 PM
To: Jenny Holmberg
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spam filter
On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
"Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald
I'm not runni
in a
production environment?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:10 PM
To: Brian Longwe
Cc: Jenny Holmberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: spam filter
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Brian Longwe wrote:
OK Vince, what will work
about this does anyone have experience with qmail-scanner in a
production environment?
Qmail-Scanner can do what you want - but it is intended for bigger/more
general things than blocking Emails with a certain From: header/etc...
There are already other anti-spam patches referred
, and
has a configurable bounce message. It can be extended to do any number of
header checks, and would be useful for allowing users to do their own
badmailfrom checks/virus header/spam checking.
Thanks,
Chris Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
k messages with this originating address
(or subject line) from going through the system?
Thanks,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spam filter
+ "Brian Longwe" [EMAI
+ "Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| But I want to find a way to stop the culprit from sending all this
| junk through my system. To me it looks like the "from" address that
| shows in the outgoing messages is [EMAIL PROTECTED], how can I
| block messages with this originating address (or
I can get
them to disable the application?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: spam filter
+ "Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| But I want to find a w
+ "Brian Longwe" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Hi,
|
| I want to filter out messages with the following header from being
| sent out by a user on my system:
| -
| Hi. This is the qmail-send program at relay.ispkenya.com.
| I tried to deliver a bounce message
Hi,
I want to filter out messages with the following header from being sent out
by a user on my system:
-
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at relay.ispkenya.com.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced!
[EMAIL
We're getting dozens of these SPAM now every day just on a single
admin account. There is a flood going to user mail boxes too.
I've not been successful blocking it with badmailfrom or
badmailpatterns. procmail yes, but I'd rather push them
back. It's coming from all over the place. We're
badmailfrom won't work on this. See the archives for discussions on
why not (it checks Return-Path).
Perhaps speak to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as it looks to be originating in there.
Regards.
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 02:21:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're getting dozens of these SPAM
On 1 Jan 2001, Mark Delany wrote:
badmailfrom won't work on this. See the archives for discussions on
why not (it checks Return-Path).
Not good idea on ORBS spamer's list can be found peoples, who
don't write spam - for instace I.
Each admin or groups of admin should made their own "bla
"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sexy virgin.scr"
Regards.
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 02:21:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're getting dozens of these SPAM now every day just on a single
admin account. There is a floo
peoples, who
don't write spam - for instace I.
The problem is, this isn't spam -- it's a virus. If you start blocking IP's
from wherever you get this, you will start blocking a *lot* of non-relaying
sites. This isn't relaying. This is a case of honest (albeit IMNSHO
clueless) people sending out a copy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're getting dozens of these SPAM now every day just on a single
admin account. There is a flood going to user mail boxes too.
I've not been successful blocking it with badmailfrom or
badmailpatterns. procmail yes, but I'd rather push them
back. It's coming
Hi All,
We have an application where we want to add a process of spam rejection.
Fully automated spam rejection is not wanted, as not a single non-spam
should not be redirected to /dev/nul. Also, full spam rejection is required.
We want something like moderated mailing lists, where a defined
How to set spam control on mail() function. We allow use mail() for our free
hosting. How to set limit use mail() (PHP v4.0.3pl1).
Method's of QMAIL plz.
How to set spam control on mail() function. We allow use mail() for our free
hosting. How to set limit use mail() (PHP v4.0.3pl1).
Method's of QMAIL plz.
Forget it.
php allows users to open sockets and send mails without using qmail at
all.
Felix
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:34:22PM +0300, Michail A.Baikov wrote:
How to set spam control on mail() function. We allow use mail() for our free
hosting. How to set limit use mail() (PHP v4.0.3pl1).
This is more of a PHP question than a QMail question. You might want to
do something like build
1 - 100 of 614 matches
Mail list logo
