I can't believe I sent the last message w/o a subject. Here it is again so
the thread can be followed.
Hey Sam. I'm experiencing something weird, and am hoping you can straighten
me out. :-)
Running QmailToaster, which uses SimScan to scan mail, SpamAssassin is not
being invoked.
Did you try using Upper Case ALLOW (not shouting)? That's what's shown
in the documentation.
In any case, I would expect Spamdyke to show some sort of error if/when
configuration parameters aren't quite kosher.
No, because that's not what I'm seeing in the
Yes... After seeing Eric post this a while back, I thought about it, and
it's so glaringly obvious that this works so well...
In my case, all my inbound mail comes into a group of servers, none of which
should be being used by any of my users to send mail...So, anything coming
into them,
and scan all email
regardless of origin or authentication. You're welcome to try it but be
warned: I haven't tested it at all, I haven't even tried to compile it
(I don't have a simscan environment set up).
-- Sam Clippinger
On 1/12/11 3:39 PM, Michael Colvin wrote:
I cant believe I sent
, 2011 4:38 PM
To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] SpamAssassin not getting Invoked
You're correct. I didn't read it thoroughly. Sorry.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 01/12/2011 04:56 PM, Michael Colvin wrote:
Did you try using Upper Case ALLOW (not shouting)? That's
So, what exactly Broke when you implemented Spamdyke? I also have a
couple Qmailrocks mail servers running Spamdyke. I've not had any issues.
If I remember correctly, there may be some different paths used in QMR
versus some other Standard Qmail installations.
If you can give more details as
As a side note on this thread...
I've not applied the patch on my boxes yes, just haven't had the time. I've
just run the script that was provided every couple days, and that cleared
the hung process.
However, I have noticed something interesting. I used to have to run it
every couple days.
on the qmr forum and see that
was not
a Spamdyke Problem.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Michael Colvin mcol...@norcalisp.com
wrote:
As a side note on this thread...
I've not applied the patch on my boxes yes, just haven't had the time. I've
just run the script that was provided every couple
I'm running several QMT servers with spamdyke, and am now of the opinion
that there's a bug in spamdyke. All are running v4.0.10. Also, I believe
that DNS resolution is configured and working properly in all cases
(local caching DNS, forwarding to root servers), so that should not be
an
Are you using the reverse DNS check in SpamDyke? If a sending mail server does
not have an MX record, you should reject it outright.
That would have stopped this e-mail.
If a mail server admin is too incompetent to know that they need to have an MX
record for their mail server, they are
I've not seen one. I've often thought of building something, and tying it
into SpamAssassin also...A basic spam setting configuration page, that let
users config options that are applicable to their accounts...Not so much for
the Global settings...I still like doing those from a CLI...
Maybe a
for configuring spamdyke
Michael Colvin wrote:
I've not seen one. I've often thought of building something, and tying
it
into SpamAssassin also...A basic spam setting configuration page, that
let
users config options that are applicable to their accounts...Not so much
for
the Global settings
After looking into QMT, which has recipient validation built in, I'm not
sure Spamdyke really needs it... The implementation in QMT allows for
VPOPmail and non-VPOPmail qmail servers to easily validate recipients. If
Spamdyke implemented a version based on cdb files, with VPOPmail servers,
Can't Spamdyke block mail using wildcards? Something like
*.mydomain.com..??? I think in the recipients blacklist area... Not
sure..Haven't played with that much.
If it's only the one domain (or a list of known domains), then I'd look into
that.
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
of spamdyke is a decision only you can make.
-- Sam Clippinger
Michael Colvin wrote:
In regards to this Feature, Sam, can you give a brief overview of how
you
implemented it? Is it similar to the CHKUSR patch that queries
VPOPMAIL, or
? I'm trying to decide if I want to wait
In regards to this Feature, Sam, can you give a brief overview of how you
implemented it? Is it similar to the CHKUSR patch that queries VPOPMAIL, or
? I'm trying to decide if I want to wait for it to be included in Spamdyke,
or implement to patch to Qmail and not utilize it when it's available
As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say, Never mind. ;)
--
You're dating yourself. :-) I'm probably one of only a few that even get
that. :-P
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
FYI Sam,
Your ISP has been listed on a blacklist... :-)
http://www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx and put in 208.110.65.146
This is a new list I added a couple weeks ago, and I finally realized I
hadn't been getting any messages from the list...
I'd take it off, but lately, I've been
I'm still not getting e-mails from the list... I've added the mail server's
IP to whitelisted IP's, but I'm not even seeing an attempt to deliver in the
logs...
I tried to re-signup, but I got an e-mail that said I was already signed up?
I'm thinking my account got put on hold from bounces due
but... :) The blacklist entry is actually against my data
center -- apparently the blacklist provider has concluded that they host
spammers. According to their site, the entry should expire in 7 days.
-- Sam Clippinger
Michael Colvin wrote:
I'm still not getting e-mails from the list... I've added
The _none directories are caused by mail attempting to be delivered to
addresses with an empty From field. You can see this in your log with
something like:
Jul 28 12:47:06 limelight spamdyke[21357]: DENIED_GRAYLISTED from: (unknown)
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] origin_ip: 64.183.66.155 origin_rdns:
this afternoon. I
leave first thing tomorrow morning.
-- Sam Clippinger
Michael Colvin wrote:
Sam, I know you're leaving, but are you still around
tonight for a question?
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
Sam, I know you're leaving, but are you still around tonight for a question?
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Sam,
Quick question about the next version. Will that version include the valid
receipient checking? I believe you've mentioned it will, but I want to make
sure.
And, a more specific questions about its implementation, if you've figured
that much out yet...Will it support VPopmail w/MySql?
That was partly why I was asking... I'm currently NOT filtering based on
valid rcptto, and the arguements for and against both have merits. My
initial concern was against harvest attacks for e-mail addresses. However,
at least John Simpson's validrcptto patch takes that into account and adds
Aaa The next version. :-)
I'm getting ready to roll out like 4 new mail servers... Any chance 4.0
will be out in the next week or so? (I'm not pressing, just curious if I
should install the current version, or hold off for a week or so.)
Thanks!
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet
Im my case, although I haven't looked at it in a week or so, the spam
Waves would come in 5 or so e-mails, to non-existant e-mail accounts at
one of my domains, each message from the same IP. Then, I'd get the same
message, different To address, different IP, 5 or so of them. This would
I was in a similar situation a couple months ago when I took over service
for another ISP that had been hosting it's domain with yet another ISP, who
had poor spam filtering...
For years, the domain I took over had likely been used for spam, either
directly or through backscatter, the result,
Not to be a pushy little whinner...But, it is May now. :-) You've got so
many new toys in the new version that you've been teasing us with, and then
teasing that you're trying to get it out in April. :-)
Just kiddin'.
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
... mid-May for sure. :)
-- Sam Clippinger
Michael Colvin wrote:
Not to be a pushy little whinner...But, it is May now. :-) You've
got so many new toys in the new version that you've been teasing us
with, and then teasing that you're trying to get it out in
April. :-)
Just
Maybe doing it in a kind of Greylist fasion might work... Where, instead
of denying the first one, you allow the first one, then block subsequent
NDR's from the same IP? That would allow legit bounces through, as well as
the bogus backscatter, but it will limit the backscatter to 1 copy. Maybe
Doing this, kind of negates the need for doing it in SpamDyke, except for
maybe a Backup in case Qmail doesn't for some reason.
I think the problem is, some people don't have a timeoutsmtpd file. I had
a Stock Qmailrocks install that did not have it, and apparently, the
Default value used by
.
Sam, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Bruce
Michael Colvin wrote:
Doing this, kind of negates the need for doing it in
SpamDyke, except
for maybe a Backup in case Qmail doesn't for some reason.
I think the problem is, some people don't have a
timeoutsmtpd
long enough that the sending server times out when
autoexpire kicks in. To get around this, I turn off
autoexpire and run a daily cron job to handle that.
Michael Colvin wrote:
I wasn't trying to say SpamDyke was responsible for the
issue I saw,
nor that it would solve anyone's issue
There's alread been something similar contributed... I've been using it for
a few weeks, and it's great...
Here's the thread. Read through it though, the initial post had a couple
typos, so you'll need to read through it to find the working version of the
script.
] On Behalf Of
Marcin Orlowski
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:17 AM
To: spamdyke users
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Greylisting wishes
Michael Colvin wrote:
Doesn't it already log DENIED GREYLISTED when it greylists an
address, then when it is sent again, and passes the
greylist test
Good point, although, I would think an appropriate log tag would be ALLOWED
GREYLIST_WHITELIST, not ALLOWED GREYLIST... And, that may have been
mentioned in this thread at some point...The e-mails have been flying on
this one! :-)
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
Now that one I like. :-)
Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Marcin Orlowski
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:50 AM
To: spamdyke users
Subject: [spamdyke-users]
Doesn't it already log DENIED GREYLISTED when it greylists an address,
then when it is sent again, and passes the greylist test, it logs
ALLOWED... Doesn't that already identify greylisted e-mails? Or, are we
talking about logging the fact that e-mails are allowed AND have already
been
.)
-- Sam Clippinger
Michael Colvin wrote:
To find real numbers, you would have to consider how many
connections
are accepted, how many are rejected and for what reasons.
Then look
at the popularity of different spamdyke features and
specifically the
popularity of different DNS
40 matches
Mail list logo
