On 9/20/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The disk access is very slow in compared with memory (ram) access.
In the file of options per user, there is only users with specific
options, the default option is only 1 line where the admin can
manipulate default actions.
I'm not programmer, but
On 9/27/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DENIED_OTHER means spamdyke did not reject the message; qmail did.
spamdyke noticed the rejection and logged it.
Hi Sam -
Would it be possible to change the above log line info to read
DENIED_BY_OTHER to better imply that spamdyke didn't do it?
Thanks,
On 10/3/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok but i must add a directory on /var/qmail/spamdyke/graylisted/
Like gmail.com
It's not done automactly?I must do with all the domains i want
receive emails from?
You tell spamdyke the DOMAIN for which the greylisting will occur.
For example, I have
On 11/22/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone knows how can i do that after spamdyke scans
the email if it's listed or not on a rbl.
You need to read the documentation. Spamdyke does not 'scan the email'.
Spamdyke is *better* than spamassassin and clamav in the way that it
BLOCKS most
Andrew -
I know I'm running off in weird directions, but a couple of questions:
What OS are you running and how much RAM do your machines contain?
Bucky
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
On 2/8/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One important thought: have you tried installing a caching name
server
on your mail server? That's usually the single biggest thing you can
do
to improve performance.
.. and it is EASY to do. Heed this advice!
Bucky
On 2/8/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
personally disagree with DJB's position about strictly interpreting
the
RFCs -- I believe software should strictly follow RFCs when producing
output and loosely follow them when accepting it.
This is a highly rational approach. DJB ought to look
On 2/8/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
personally disagree with DJB's position about strictly
interpreting
the
RFCs -- I believe software should strictly follow RFCs when
producing
output and loosely follow them when accepting it.
This is a highly rational
On 2/16/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allowed: 425
Denied : 9968
% Spam : 95.91%
Thank you very much for this, Ken. 96% spam. How sad...
Bucky
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
On 4/28/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the server in question is a PII/266/512 (try not to laugh too
hard).
Hey! I have two P2 machines as backup servers, but the primary server
is a P1/150/128 (10 years old next month) that is showing some
overloading strains but otherwise has run
On 5/9/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So - graylisting - how effective it really is for you?
The only spam blocking I use presently is spamdyke with graylisting.
Pre-spamdyke I was getting 1000 spams/day into my personal mailbox.
Since installing spamdyke with graylisting I get 3-4
Bravo and Thank You!!!
On 7/14/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At long, long last, the moment we've all been waiting for! spamdyke
version 4.0.0 is now available:
http://www.spamdyke.org/
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
Thank you, Sam, for a very excellent explanation of how it all works.
Have you considered writing an MTA to replace qmail which can use spamdyke?
Looking forward to the next version...
Bucky
On 5/4/2009 spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
When a message is delivered to a stock
Found several of these messages sporadically in the ../maillog file today:
[date/time/machine] spamdyke[57524]: ERROR: unable to write 26 bytes to
file descriptor 1: Broken pipe
Any ideas where I should start looking?
Thanks,
Bucky
___
A small bit of education for me, please...
In September 2002 (!) for 2 weeks I used a TEMPORARY email address of
say xyzzyx(at)purgatory.org. After those two weeks I deleted the 'for
sale' ads for which that email address was used. The server on which
that 'for sale' ad, and therefore my
On 6/2/2009 spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
You don't need to worry about this. The sender disconnected. It is a
common thing to see in the logs. There's no error.
Thank you very much! Was worrying I'd have to engage a plumber...
Bucky
Hi Sam -
That is a pretty good synopsis of what he is doing. Doesn't he claim to
find *any* sought after data in no more than 7 seeks? Maybe I misread
that somewhere. :)
My take on the below would be that if spamdyke remains a qmail-only spam
blocker, then going with a cdb-based database
I'm not a savvy programmer, so consider that when reading my comments.
On 10/23/2009 spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I'm thinking that no database might just be the best for this
particular application (spamdyke).
I don't know where people get the idea that databases provide
Was wondering what firewall programs you folks use with your
OS/qmail/spamdyke setups?
For example, for years now I've used FreeBSD/qmail/spamdyke with the
ipfw firewall.
I'm planning to change from ipfw to pf (which comes from OpenBSD) as
the firewall. They work in fundamentally different
kudos to Eric. He is right - it is very counter intuitive. Spamdyke
blocks 98.9% of spam and doing as Eric suggested got rid of another 1%.
On 1/12/2011 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Another method of rejecting this sort of spam (forged from addresses) is
to blacklist
Thank you, Sam, for puzzling this out on-list. Always interesting to
see how a programmer's mind works.
Bucky
On 3/12/2011 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
So, two bugs. I'll get them fixed. :) Thanks for reporting this!
___
Sam - we all have to earn a living and know that Spamdyke is a labor
of love-alone for you (and for US!!!)
We all appreciate to the tips of our toes, what you've created here.
Thank you very much!
On 5/6/2011 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I'm sorry the fixes have
There is something else amiss here, from my reading of the logs. If
there is gobs of memory available, then do as Sam suggests and
allocate a LOT - say 300mb to the softlimit and retest. I'd wager
there will still be troubles.
On 6/9/2011 11:54 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Is this what the tar pit option in qmail is suppose to do?
On 7/18/2011 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I would like to know
if spamdyke can block relay if the client is trying to send a lot of
email in a small period of time or something else that can ease this
On 7/8/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I think that the simplest way of matching up messages would be if the
log messages contained the Message-ID field from the email headers. I
checked the TODO.txt file, and Frank beat me to the request:
Log the Message-ID field so
Then why am I not getting hammered with spam? Is it the
failed-reverse-lookup that is saving me?
On 7/9/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Overall, I suspect Eric suspects what I also believe -- graylisting isn't
effective any more.
How interesting. Well, whatever the reason I still only very
occasionally get any spam, yet when I look at the maillog there are
countless attempts to send me span each day. One in particular that
is amusing is to one email address I used exactly ONE time 10 years
ago. There are hundreds
On 7/11/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I've disabled graylisting on a few domains that are sensitive to timely
delivery. They haven't complained about any increase in spam. You might
try doing the same to see the effect.
I expect that the various rDNS filters,
On 7/12/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I use an internal caching DNS server as a DNS forwarder for spamdyke's
dns requests. This way I only need to query outside once, and
subsequent spam bursts from the same server are rejected by local
lookups to the cache. This
I know that a local DNS server is virtually required for good
performance with spamdyke.
Am curious what you don't like about djbdns? Or what you like better
about unbound?
unbound looks interesting and is available to me via the FreeBSD ports
collection.
On 7/13/2012 11:00 AM,
Right.
But the bottom line is that spamdyke is still doing a fabulous job of
blocking spam by whatever filter is doing it.
Thanks.
On 7/13/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Well, remember the filters run in a specific order. Graylisting is one of
the very last
Any good reason to NOT use djbdns, then? I'm not opposed to switching
if there is a GOOD reason to switch.
I run a tiny mail server with essentially one customer - me.
On 7/16/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
I can't think
of any good reason to use djbdns any
A novice question perhaps, but does it matter much where one runs the
local caching resolver?
I have a LAN with IP 10.x.x.x and simply use 10.0.0.1 as the local IP
for the resolver. My understanding is that any local IP can be used
so long as it can be reached by those functions needing
I think I understand what you are saying.
My local LAN is quite simple: only one *nix box and it sits between
the internet source and the rest of the machines on my LAN. That one
box contains two NICs - the public (WAN-side NIC) and the private
(LAN-side NIC) and runs spamdyke (as well as
On 9/2/2012 8:44 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
That's how I started as well. :)
You might want to consider putting an IPCop (or other suitable firewall)
host on your perimeter. I think it's the next logical step for your
situation.
Whew, good to know I'm on track.
Running
This is probably over my head.
From my reading about a DMZ, that would require using a 3rd NIC on
the host machine, right? I have a mobo NIC that I'm not using
presently and could assign it an address of say, 10.10.0.1 (the LAN
is 10.0.0.1)
Presently, everything that is running on the
A favor please.
Can we trim up the responses a bit? They are almost all requoting.
Thanks.
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Sam has made this very simple to do by following the directions. Takes
only minutes.
On 12/24/2012 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Yes. In the documentation folder, there is a file named
UPGRADING_version_3_to_version_4.txt that lists exactly what options need to
A previous poster asked about blocking entire domains and asked if
something like @ru would block all @.ru mail.
It seemed that Sam chimed in and said it wasn't intended to do so, but
does apparently work.
Well, it doesn't...
In my blacklist_senders file I've tried both @ru and @.ru and
Ooops. That is exactly the problem. The envelope sender is someone else.
Sorry...
On 6/15/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Are you sure the envelope senders end in .ru? In other words, the log
messages from spamdyke should show from:xxx...@yy.ru. If the .ru is
This just boggles the mind. Thank you for continuing to work on
spamdyke, Sam...
On 6/15/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Yes, I am still trying to get that finished. The testing is taking forever
-- there are 237K test scripts for that feature alone and each one
On 8/11/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Aug 10 08:18:38 C2Q_Q9400 spamdyke[64027]: ALLOWED from: (unknown) to:
[myemailaddress] origin_ip: 5.248.89.179 \
origin_rdns: 5-248-89-179-broadband.kyivstar.net auth: (unknown)
Simply use the standard Blacklists. This IP
Thank you very much. I'll add those and see what happens.
On 8/11/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Sorry - was too fast. Here is what you need to add in your spamdyke.conf:
dns-blacklist-entry=bl.spamcop.net
dns-blacklist-entry=zen.spamhaus.org
H. Just checked both whitelist files and nothing in them relates
to localhost or anything else that would have allowed this that I
can tell.
Clearly the rDNS name was shown as localhost.
Aug 11 13:40:50 C2Q_Q9400 spamdyke[73552]: ALLOWED from: (unknown)
to:bc...@purgatoire.org
Gulp. Could I be spamming myself?
On 8/13/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
It looks like the originating IP address was 127.0.0.1, which is your server.
In other words, this log entry is for a message that was generated by
something on your server. The
On 8/14/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Gulp. Could I be spamming myself?
On 8/13/2013 11:00 AM,spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
It looks like the originating IP address was 127.0.0.1, which is your
server. In other words, this log entry is for a
On 8/17/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Does your server have an IPv6 address? It's possible something is accepting
incoming connections on an IPv6 interface and tunneling back into the
localhost interface for software that doesn't support IPv6 (i.e. spamdyke and
How about if I put 127.0.0.1 into the blacklist_ip file?
Potential downsides?
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
This spam got through today (after being graylisted 8 minutes):
Oct 2 13:53:25 C2Q_Q9400 spamdyke[66462]: ALLOWED from: (unknown) to:
b...@purgatoire.org origin_ip: 24.227.125.250
origin_rdns: rrcs-24-227-125-250.se.biz.rr.com auth: (unknown)
encryption: (none) reason:
Thank you, Sam. That is a subtlety which I missed in reading the
really excellent documentation!
On 10/3/2013 11:00 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote:
Close... but you need a leading dot if you want it to match a domain name
instead of looking for the keyword in the middle of
Does anyone use some sort of RAMdisk or memory disk to hold the
graylist?
I just did a 'du' on my graylist and it takes up 85mb of space.
I'm trying to reduce the amount of hard drive accesses going on.
___
Darn Thunderbird
update...changed my default
settings.
Here was my question:
Does anyone use some sort of RAMdisk or memory disk to hold the
graylist?
I just did a 'du' on my
You actually answered another question I had as well. I noticed in
my latest server-build, that the 'top' command shows an additional
line that I'd not seen on the previous server:
Mem: 36M Active, 29M Inact, 206M Wired, 5647M Free
ARC: 59M Total, 12M MFU, 45M
You are doing what I want to do. Which RAMdisk program are you
running? Do you have a script that flushes the RAMdisk contents to
disk periodically, so the info on the hard disk doesn't get too
stale between reboots?
Could you share your init Script(s)
The other question I forgot to ask...
With zfs and 4G RAM running, the prefetch is automatically
disabled. Did you make the loader.conf change to enable prefetch
caching anyway?
Thanks.
On 11/1/2013 11:00 AM,
.
On 11/01/2013 03:02 PM, BC wrote:
The other question I forgot to ask...
With zfs and 4G RAM running, the prefetch is automatically
disabled. Did you make the loader.conf change to enable
prefetch caching anyway
Interesting. I've
been doing it this way - should I stop?
# time to delete old, empty
graylist entries older than 15 days (empty files empty
directories)
find /var/qmail/antispam/graylist/ -type f -mtime +15 -print
On 11/22/2013 7:09 PM, Gary Gendel
wrote:
My graylists do get constantly pruned
but others seem to have old ones remaining. Then again, my
graylist-max-secs is set to 1296000 (one day) which is probably
shorter than most.
On 11/23/2013 8:55 AM, Eric Shubert
wrote:
Having said that, I've come to the conclusion that graylisting isn't
worth it to me. I disabled graylisting several months ago, and haven't
really noticed any less effectiveness. Measuring the effectiveness of
On 11/23/2013 9:39 AM, Eric Shubert
wrote:
But what is the "cost of graylisting"? Graylisting delays a legit email
by X amount of minutes. Is that the pain of which you are talking?
Yes. I realize that the impact of the delay is infrequent, but when
Thank you, Sam.
spamdyke is a wonderful spam
blocker!
On 11/23/2013 2:43 PM, Sam Clippinger
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree. Graylisting was designed to stop spam coming from spambots on infected home PCs --
Thank you, Sam. Will spamdyke do IPv6 records as well?
On 1/28/2014 8:42 AM, Sam Clippinger wrote:
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...
spamdyke version 5.0.0 is now available! Get it here:
http://www.spamdyke.org/
This version is a major update that adds 12
One of the RBLs I'm using is bl.mailspike.net. Today they started
listing an IP which 100 other blacklists don't have listed. Then it
delisted it, then it put it back, then delisted it again - all over
the course of a couple of hours. Now blacklisted again.
What other free, RBL services are
three don't catch even a
tenth of what Barracuda catches.
-- Sam Clippinger
On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:05 PM, BC bc...@purgatoire.org
mailto:bc...@purgatoire.org wrote:
One of the RBLs I'm using isbl.mailspike.net http://bl.mailspike.net. Today
they started
listing an IP which 100 other
Do I need to sign up to use b.barracudacentral.org? I've been looking
around their website...
On 3/7/2014 2:11 PM, Gary Gendel wrote:
I tend to agree, however, it does depend on the ordering. I found
that there are a lot of duplications on the list so the first one
tends to get the most
Okay, thanks. It told me to register, which I did... then it
disappeared into a black hole (probably preparing to spam me into the
next century :). The about info said if you don't register the IPs
from which you'll be making inqueries, they might add that IP to the
blacklist.
Gulp.
available. Just add
dns-blacklist-entry=b.barracudacentral.org
http://b.barracudacentral.org to your spamdyke config file.
-- Sam Clippinger
On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:23 PM, BC bc...@purgatoire.org
mailto:bc...@purgatoire.org wrote:
Do I need to sign up to use b.barracudacentral.org? I've been
On 3/7/2014 3:25 PM, Sam Clippinger wrote:
Actually, the order of the options doesn't matter. spamdyke queries
all of the RBLs simultaneously and uses the first positive response
it gets from the DNS server.
Okay, thanks for that bit.
___
On 3/8/2014 7:03 AM, Angus McIntyre wrote:
TL;DR: if you null-route every IP that HostNoc owns, it will make a dramatic
difference to the amount of spam you see.
Angus,
To what does the TL;DR refer? How are you null-routing all those
IPs? With spamdyke somehow?
Bucky
PS - this is a
On 3/8/2014 7:18 AM, Lutz Petersen wrote:
Instead make this spamdyke.conf Settings:
dns-blacklist-entry=bl.mailspike.net
This is the one causing all sorts of mischief lately - blacklisting
and unblacklisting legit and non-spamming IPs rapidly.
What is wrong with barracuda? You said it
Okay, thanks for the excellent explanation and I know how to null
route an IP at the firewall.
On 3/8/2014 7:58 AM, Angus McIntyre wrote:
BC wrote:
On 3/8/2014 7:03 AM, Angus McIntyre wrote:
TL;DR: if you null-route every IP that HostNoc owns, it will make a
dramatic difference
On 3/9/2014 1:21 PM, Sam Clippinger wrote:
plus my private list that's generated by the hunter_seeker script.
My private list has blocked about 4.5 times more connections today
than the DNS RBLs.
Sam -
Is a functionality that could be built into spamdyke with a .conf
configuration option?
On 3/28/2014 12:47 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
I'm also wondering, should 2048 and 4096 key lengths also be included?
As of January 1, 2014 key lengths of 1024 are not to be allowed for
new installations going forward. Newly issued certs have to be for a
minimum of 2048 bit keys.
On 10/30/2014 6:09 PM, Les Fenison wrote:
Still wondering what we are to use for encryption now that SSLv3 is
vulnerable. What are most people doing? Leaving the submission
port vulnerable by leaving SSLv3 available and securing all the rest
of the ports?Or just giving up on email
At the suggestion of others here, I turned OFF greylisting last year,
after having used it for years before that. My spam level didn't
increase one bit. I think the RBL sites are pretty good at
identifying spam originations, so I use thatmethod now.
On 11/4/2014 12:55 AM, Quinn Comendant
make a
difference. However, I haven't seen any new websites added to that
blocklist so I wonder whether that is as effective as it used to be.
On 11/04/2014 02:03 PM, BC wrote:
I don't have a link to the conversation, but I literally turned off
greylisting and turned on using RBLs at the same
Same error here ona new build. No time to pursue it presently.
Curious about the solution as well.
On 11/27/2014 7:21 PM, Les Fenison wrote:
I keep seeing this error in the log every few minutes...
Nov 27 18:03:32 zeus spamdyke[28831]:
ERROR(check_ip_in_rdns_keyword()@filter.c:919):
Thank you, Sam! I'll go through my .conf file, too and remove the
offending stuff.
On 11/28/2014 2:49 PM, Sam Clippinger wrote:
Found the problem -- very obscure! The structure of your
configuration file is tickling a small bug so it adds an empty value
to the end of the list of
Thank you, Sam. For so much work on this update, a measly 0.0.1
version bump belittles it.
On 5/1/2015 11:36 AM, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
spamdyke lives!
spamdyke version 5.0.1 is now available:
http://www.spamdyke.org/
This version fixes a ton of bugs, including a number
Wow. So for example, the starting linefor my smtpd-run file looks like
this:
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver
-4v -R -l $LOCAL \
and I can simply change it to this:
exec /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -4v -R -l $LOCAL \
with impunity?
On 6/20/2015 5:12
That is what I figured. Thanks, Sam.
On 5/5/2016 6:30 AM, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
Right now, spamdyke has no support for IPv6 at all, so it can't
understand that nameserver line. However, the only consequence
should be that error message -- it shouldn't have any trouble
A, the ulimit limits. I'd forgotten about those and was focusing
on the "softlimit" word in the error.
Thanks, Sam.
On 5/5/2016 6:35 AM, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
You're correct that those messages are related to limits, but not
the ones softlimit can set. Those
Using FreeBSD here.
In addition to my normal IPv4 connection, I have an IPv6 tunnel set up
via Hurricane Electric. Also use unbound as my local DNS cache
resolver for resolving both IPv4 & IPv6 addresses and it has been
doing both for over a year now.
spamdyke doesn't seem to like the
Now that I've set log-level=excessive, I can see these two errors that
spamdyke is spitting out a lot:
May 4 13:54:52 Xeon_Right spamdyke[18726]:
ERROR(undo_softlimit()@spamdyke.c:3226): data segment hard limit is
less than infinity, could lead to unexplainable crashes: 34359738368
May 4
I've got 127.0.0.1 in my "blacklist_ip" file and the system seems to
be working fine.
On 8/9/2016 4:02 AM, Faris Raouf via spamdyke-users wrote:
Dear all,
We’re having problems with spam being allowed in from IPs with rDNS
resolving to “localhost”.
This gets past the reject-empty-rdns
While installing spamdyke on my latest FreeBSD build machine, I saw
this notice:
Message from spamdyke-5.0.1_1:
===> NOTICE:
The spamdyke port currently does not have a maintainer. As a result, it is
more likely to have unresolved issues, not be up-to-date, or even be
removed in
the
I'm building out a new server box and figured it is time to revisit my
configuration files, including spamdyke.conf. In 2014 I included some
dns-blacklist-entry="entries...".
But in 2015/2016 my configuration didn't include any.
What say the congregants about the efficacy of RBL usage with
On 10/3/2016 6:58 AM, Faris Raouf via spamdyke-users wrote:
dns-blacklist-entry=b.barracudacentral.org
Comment out the above and try it again.
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Well, I have spamdyke-qrv installed and turned on in spamdyke.conf,
but am still getting stuff like this (maillog):
Nov 8 21:48:51 33a45916-5b78-11e6-a0e5-0cc47a6975be spamdyke[17138]:
ALLOWED from: filenkokir...@shopon.net to: sergushk...@bk.ru
origin_ip: 10.0.1.15 origin_rdns: (unknown)
It hasn't risen to the level of DDOS, yet, but I'm getting many
hundreds of these messages per night (and it is now continuing during
the day).
They look like this:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at purgatoire.org.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address,
Thank you very much. I'll look into that.
On 11/7/2016 9:13 AM, Gary Gendel via spamdyke-users wrote:
This doesn't look like it's email originating from your system.
Instead, it looks like spamdyke has accepted the message and then
qmail is doing the rejection. My guess is that it passes
.
-- Sam Clippinger
On May 26, 2018, at 2:42 PM, BC via spamdyke-users
mailto:spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org>>
wrote:
Will spamdyke compile with TLS using the LibreSSL libraries?
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
On 9/28/2020 7:51 AM, Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users wrote:
You need to block by header contents as it offers more wildcards:
https://www.spamdyke.org/documentation/README.html#HEADERS
From:*
Hmm . . I thought I had tried that - oh well, I will give it a shot!
I use this technique
93 matches
Mail list logo
