I like having specific RBLs logged. I just installed spamdyke on a few
qmail-toasters yesterday (replacing rblsmtpd), and was going to as about
this. Michael beat me to it! ;)
If simultaneous queries are being done, can all RBLs that match be logged?
Perhaps a comma separated list within
Thorsten Puzich wrote:
Hello,
I get this message, when I run ./configure.
checking for __bind in -lsocket... no
checking for inet_ntoa in -lnsl... yes
checking whether anonymous inner functions are supported by default...
no
checking whether anonymous inner functions are supported
Christian Aust wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using the latest release of spamdyke, and it's working great -
thanks a lot.
Now I'd like to have my home server relay it's mail through the main
mail system. Spamdyke blocks the connecton with DENIED_IP_IN_CC_RDNS,
because the home system
schrieb Eric Shubert:
Thorsten Puzich wrote:
Hello,
I get this message, when I run ./configure.
checking for __bind in -lsocket... no
checking for inet_ntoa in -lnsl... yes
checking whether anonymous inner functions are supported by default...
no
checking whether anonymous inner
Are you simply talking about a right-hand whitelist?
That could be useful in some situations. For instance, I recently came
across a mailer who was being rejected due to DENIED_RDNS_RESOLVE, so I
whitelisted the IP (instead of turning off that check). I would rather
whitelist the domain name
Sam Clippinger wrote:
Other connections are not being blocked because their rDNS names don't
end in country codes. Instead, they use three-character TLDs like
.com and .net. If you want to block those connections as well, use
the ip-in-rdns-keyword-file option and put .com and .net in
I see.
I still think that regex's are more intuitive/flexible though. ;)
Sam Clippinger wrote:
If the entry starts with a dot, it will only match the end of the rDNS
name. If there is no dot, it will match anywhere in the name.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Sam Clippinger wrote
Sam Clippinger wrote:
spamdyke looks for the IP address in many different formats. If the IP
address is 11.22.33.44, it looks for:
11.22.33.44
011.022.033.044
11.022.033.044 (new in version 4.0.0)
11.22.033.044 (new in version 4.0.0)
11.22.33.044 (new in version 4.0.0)
not resolve to an IP address (a DNS A record). In other
words, ping ihsystem-65-182-166-90.pugmarks.net will fail with
unknown host.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
I don't understand (after having read the documentation) why the example I
showed was rejected then. Please explain
I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It would always send
the same amount of data, then timeout. The same amount of data was
sent/received with timeouts of 60 and 180 seconds.
I logged the message (great little feature of spamdyke btw), and the end
part of the message log always
. I think I may have been having a bit of a brain fart
yesterday. ;)
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
That makes sense, but it's not what I read at
http://www.spamdyke.org/documentation/README.html#RDNS
I don't see anything there about looking up
There's possible, and there's trivial. I vote trivial (good idea!). :)
Sam Clippinger wrote:
ALLOWED_GRAYLISTED could be useful if graylisting isn't active for all
domains. It would mean that the graylisting filter had checked for the
existence of a graylist file for that connection (and
I think I sorta like both.
Sam Clippinger wrote:
OK, I guess I've been working on version 4.0.0 for too long now because
I didn't realize I'd already implemented this feature (until I tried to
add it again). However, I didn't do it quite the way we described in
this thread; instead of
/spamdyke.conf
idle-timeout-secs = 300
After that never had problem with the repetition of messages.
2008/4/22 Eric Shubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It would
always send
the same amount of data, then timeout
I can reproduce this error
myself. I haven't had any success triggering this bug by using just any
large message.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
That's interesting, Paulo. I have timeoutsmtpd at 600, and nothing specified
for idle-timeout-secs. Sam's having a look at a couple
that never had problem with the repetition of messages.
2008/4/22 Eric Shubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It
would always send
the same amount of data, then timeout. The same amount
The old RBLSMTPD is doing the lookup before passing it on to spamdyke, so
spamdyke is never receiving it. You need to remove $RBLSMTPD $BLACLISTS to
disable the toaster's stock blacklist processing.
You didn't use qtp-install-spamdyke, did you? It would have modified your
run file to look like
Well said. It wouldn't be spamDYKE at that point. ;)
Bgs wrote:
Spamdyke is an smtp level filtering system while virus filtering is at
the data level. Absolutely different by design. Spamdyke is fast because
it does not bother to handle data. If you add virus filtering to it, it
would be
nightduke wrote:
-bash-3.1# ./configure
checking for gcc... gcc
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking whether we are cross compiling... no
checking for suffix of executables...
checking for suffix of object files... o
If you're using qmailtoaster, you can submit to port 587, which always
authenticates, and I believe does not invoke spamassassin. I'm not 100%
positive about this though.
nightduke wrote:
Yes that's my idea whitelist anyone that authenticates to my qmail
server and bypass spamassassin...
found it to be an easy way to turn spamdyke off temporarily, as
opposed to changing run files back and forth. :)
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
I've probably hosed up something in my new .conf file.
What I'm seeing is that with filter
this is a spamdyke bug but the way you've
described your setup, it sounds like splogger is functioning correctly.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
I've just installed spamdyke 4.0.3 on a somewhat convoluted qmail host, and
am seeing some wierdness with logging
entry.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Sam Clippinger wrote:
Good to hear it's working... I guess there just weren't any good
messages being delivered while you were testing filter-level?
That's what I'm thinking.
I'm still seeing something a little peculiar though. I
nightduke wrote:
Sep 4 08:00:48 vps spamdyke[5229]: FILTER_SENDER_NO_MX domain: localhost
Sep 4 08:00:48 vps spamdyke[5229]: DENIED_SENDER_NO_MX from:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ost to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] origin_ip: 127.0.0.1 origin_rdns: localhost au
messages to both standard error and the system log.
Thanks to Eric Shubert for reporting this one.
Version 4.x is NOT backwards compatible with 3.x; be sure to read the
documentation before upgrading.
Version 4.0.4 is backwards-compatible with version 4.0.3; simply replacing
the old binary
I think I can field this one. ;)
Davide D'AMICO wrote:
Hi,
I'm using spamdyke and I like it a lot.
I encountered two problems:
1) Isn't more useful to graylist senders using their ip address rather
than only its
email address, like this:
Davide D'AMICO wrote:
2008/9/7 Eric Shubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think I can field this one. ;)
Davide D'AMICO wrote:
1) Isn't more useful to graylist senders using their ip address rather
than only its
email address, like this:
/var/db/spamdyke/graylist/domain/rcpt/sender/ip_sender
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to ask about your opinion on a good value for idle-timeout-secs
– I've started with a value of 60 seconds, which strangely caused
TIMEOUTs during mail delivery of large mails (over 10MB) from clinet
MTAs with SMTP AUTH (specifically the mail path
Eric Shubert wrote:
Sam,
I see in the TODO file for 4.0 that adding SPF/CSV/Sender ID/DomainKeys/DKIM
checking is ranked as a todo-later item. I don't care so much about
CSV/SenderID/DomainKeys, but I'd like to see the others implemented sooner
than later.
In particular, DKIM signatures
Erald Troja wrote:
Hello all,
We are using Hsphere control panel automation offered
from Parallels with precompiled Qmail binaries.
Our entry onto the spamdyke /etc/init.d/qmaild script which
is currently running on a CentOS 4.6 is as follows.
at the very top we define SPAMDYKE and
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Arthur and Bgs in that SPF is a smarter thing to check,
because it can be done without checking headers and currently has a much
wider disribution base.
IMHO the only way to properly reject DKIM failed mail is at the end of
the DATA command,
Erald Troja wrote:
Folks,
is it possible to simply allow immediate delivery
to a handful of domains, while graylisting the rest
to the standard defined graylisting policy?
Seems some folks would rather just get instant
gratification and spam, rather than have a minimal delay
with the
Kris Van Hees wrote:
I had a problem where my mail server stopped being able to service connections
because I had as many hanging spamdyke processes as was allowed in my
tcpserver
config (-c option). Unfortunately, the processes were cleaned up by another
admin before I could look at them.
Sergio Minini wrote:
Erik, try:
# cat /var/log/maillog | ./spamdyke_stats.pl
17661 ALLOWED
14224 DENIED_RBL_MATCH
-- Breakdown --
84.25% zen.spamhaus.org
15.75% bl.spamcop.net
---
12330 DENIED_RDNS_RESOLVE
10299 DENIED_RDNS_MISSING
4296DENIED_GRAYLISTED
651
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi Erik,
Am 19.10.2008 3:13 Uhr, Eric Shubert schrieb:
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi Erik,
Am 18.10.2008 20:39 Uhr, Eric Shubert schrieb:
Sergio Minini wrote:
Erik, try:
# cat /var/log/maillog | ./spamdyke_stats.pl
[...]
% Valid: 29.11%
% Spam : 69.42%
% Error
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi Eric,
Am 20.10.2008 20:01 Uhr, Eric Shubert schrieb:
BTW, couldn't the script simply test for @ in the first position of
any line to determine that it's not a syslog, so the flag wouldn't be
necessary? Seems simpler to me.
This was done to avoid a performance
TazaTek wrote:
I have about 1000 IP's in my blacklist_ip file ... and have been adding
more every week.
At what point does the number of IP's become a performance penalty ? I
was trying to reduce the load on the network by taking analyzed RBL
matches and place them in the blacklist
The qmail-toaster (http://qmailtoaster.org) implements these together
just fine, so it *is* possible. ;)
As Sam said, with a little more info about your configuration I'm expect
we can help get you running properly.
Sam Clippinger wrote:
I'm not familiar enough with simscan to give any good
Have you compared your simscan configuration to the one used by
qmailtoaster.com?
Bernd Hoffmann wrote:
It doesn't work on my system and I don't understand why. :-(
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Hartmut Wernisch
I see in the TODO.txt file, for version N+1 a request to limit full
logging by IP or rDNS name. I'd like to see this given a high priority.
In addition, I'd like to be able to limit by sender domain. Maybe simply
match the right-hand-most portion of the sender's address? (which could
be simply
A possible solution to this problem is to bring your mail server
in-house, and/or use an affordable outbound mail service such as
DynDNS's Mailhop Outbound. If you don't have a static IP address
in-house, DynDNS's CustomDNS service solves that problem affordably.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated
Sorry to say that I haven't had a chance to check out your script yet,
Sebastian. :(
Speaking of colored and filtered qmail logfiles though, there's a nice
'qmlog' script at qtp.qmailtoaster.com (part of the qmailtoaster-plus
package). It allows easy viewing and searching of qmail (et al)
-users-boun...@spamdyke.org
[mailto:spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 15:40
To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] spam analysis
A possible solution to this problem is to bring your mail server
in-house
.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Eric Shubert wrote:
Sorry to say that I haven't had a chance to check out your script yet,
Sebastian. :(
Speaking of colored and filtered qmail logfiles though, there's a nice
'qmlog' script at qtp.qmailtoaster.com (part of the qmailtoaster-plus
package). It allows
Joe Canner wrote:
Dear Spamdyke community,
Is it possible to use Spamdyke to quarantine e-mail, e.g., identify all mail
from a certain sender (or other criteria) and send it to a special mailbox
rather than deliver it to the intended recipient?
If not, what other tools are available to do
. Thanks for the reminder.
Eric Shubert wrote:
FWIW, if you're using spamassassin (along with simscan), you might want
to be sure that you have bayes_auto_expire 0 in your local.cf file.
This function can take several minutes when it kicks in, and occurs
while the smtp session is still active
Did you have a look at qtp-install-spamdyke?
# determine which version is already installed
#
a4_check_installed_version(){
sdver=$(spamdyke -v 21)
rc=$?
if [ $rc == 0 ]; then
sdverstring=$(echo $sdver | sed -e 's/^spamdyke //')
instver=${sdverstring%%.*}
else
instver=0
fi
}
;)
dnk
David Sánchez Martín wrote:
David,
That sounds like a neat idea, but I don't think it'd work. If
you simply
allow the session to complete and create a greylist entry for
everything, you will have effectively whitelisted every incoming
message, including the bad ones. Greylisting
David Sánchez Martín wrote:
That will populate the database for all email. Including
spammers. Any
spammers who send messages during the period in which the database is
being populated will get a free pass, even after greylisting is
activated. Perhaps you can live with that.
That will
Thanks, David. The light just came on. (duh) :)
David Sánchez Martín wrote:
Given that your primary objective seems to be to eliminate any delays
from existing emailers, I suppose this would work for you.
Spammers who
hit sporadically will eventually expire. I just intend to
point out
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
Is there a common reason why the sender of an email would receive a
graylist bounce message?
spamdyke conf
graylist-level=always
graylist-min-secs=290
graylist-max-secs=61600
They haven't authenticated successfully?
--
-Eric 'shubes'
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
Is there a common reason why the sender of an email would receive a
graylist bounce message?
spamdyke conf
graylist-level=always
graylist-min-secs=290
graylist-max-secs=61600
They haven't
Stefan Pausch wrote:
Hello,
i know this is not a spamdyke issue, but since here are very smart heads
i thought i give it a try and I hope you don’t mind. I posted already on
3 forums and contacted my provider and plesk support … with no solution
at all.
My system
Ronnie Tartar wrote:
I have spamdyke in front of Qmail Toaster and this morning all incoming
emails were being timed out.
I have had to temprarily remove Spamdyke from the server, ugh, already
getting more spam.
From the maillog:
Jul 13 06:59:28 mail spamdyke[21362]: TIMEOUT from:
Port 25 needs to accept email for local domains without authentication
so that incoming mail can be delivered. email coming into port 25 for
remote domains (relay) should be rejected under normal circumstances,
otherwise your server would be an open relay.
If you want all users to authenticate
dnk wrote:
On 2009-07-15, at 7:56 PM, sebasti...@jammicron.com wrote:
Glad you are still around, would be a shame to see this excellent
piece of software go down in inactivity!
It is one of the main reasons I have not yet jumped to another mail
server from qmail. My company wants an
dnk wrote:
On 2009-07-16, at 10:11 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
dnk wrote:
On 2009-07-15, at 7:56 PM, sebasti...@jammicron.com wrote:
Glad you are still around, would be a shame to see this excellent
piece of software go down in inactivity!
It is one of the main reasons I have not yet jumped
Les Fenison wrote:
I just installed spamdyke on my server running Plesk 9.2.2
I can not tell if it is actually running as it is logging nothing. I
blacklisted my own IP for a test and it didn't stop me from sending, of
course I was authenticated so maybe that was normal.
Right,
Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) wrote:
Separately, I do notice a small but sufficiently significant number of
genuine emails which get rejected with no reverse DNS. Should we be happy
to put email addresses on the white list, or is that dangerous with Spammers
being able to get through if
Message-
From: spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org
[mailto:spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
Sent: 26 August 2009 15:13
To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] newbie question - please bear with me - some
Spam getting through
Christoph Kuhle
/bin/true
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Christoph Kuhle (Expat Email Ltd) wrote:
Separately, I do notice a small but sufficiently significant number of
genuine emails which get rejected with no reverse DNS. Should we be happy
to put email addresses on the white list
Youri V. Kravatsky wrote:
Hello, people! :)
Probably I've missed something, but there is any means to integrate
qmail, spamdyke and chkuser (mine was with quotacheck)? I don't want
to reinstall/replace qmail (well, 215 domains are hosted at this
server). Right now
Rajesh M wrote:
hello
i noted that as long as i smtp authenticate qmail does not check to ensure
that the mailfrom email id (domain name part) exists in the rcpthosts file
or not.
i need to check to ensure that the domain part of the mailfrom email id is
a domain hosted on my server.
Ronnie Tartar wrote:
Is there an order to how the different configuration parameters are
executed. For instance, the white/black lists are processed, then dns tests
then the last is the rbl's?
Yes. See http://spamdyke.org/documentation/FAQ.html#FEATURE1
Does it matter what order they are in
Youri V. Kravatsky wrote:
Hello Sam,
Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 12:05:59 AM, you wrote:
chkuser is just another filter that intercepts the data before qmail
sees it, so I don't see any reason it won't work with spamdyke. IIRC,
QmailToaster uses both chkuser and spamdyke. When
Sergio Minini (NETKEY) wrote:
Mirko Buffoni escribió:
div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedGoods
average between 500 and 2000 daily. Figures are however
pretty standard. Spamdyke filters out about 60k attempts daily.
Here are yesterday stats:
Good : 1025 = 0.68
Mirko,
That answers the 'pretty formatting' part, but the meat of the sandwich
is collecting the stats. I'm afraid that Virus stats are collected
through clamav, bad_sender/rcpt are chkuser GREPs, and so on leaves us
hanging. :(
The data collection code is what I'm most interested in. Are the
Mirko Buffoni wrote:
Hi Eric,
At 06:50 03/09/2009 -0700, you wrote:
Mirko,
That answers the 'pretty formatting' part, but the meat of the sandwich
is collecting the stats. I'm afraid that Virus stats are collected
through clamav, bad_sender/rcpt are chkuser GREPs, and so on leaves us
I don't have any FILTER_RBL messages. I'm using log-level=2.
What log level are you using?
I think that it's appropriate to count each recipient as a separate
email. If the message came from a qmail server, it would be that way
anyhow. And after all, that's how many messages end up being
Youri Kravatsky wrote:
Hello, Eric!
I investigated this problem more thoroughly and what can I say - qmail
really REJECTS letters to non-existent users of ja-maica.ru (e.g.
s...@ja-maica.ru), but ACCEPTS mails for users like
(s...@www.ja-maica.ru) - it tries to work as MX server for all
Youri Kravatsky wrote:
Hello, Eric!
I investigated this problem more thoroughly and what can I say - qmail
really REJECTS letters to non-existent users of ja-maica.ru (e.g.
s...@ja-maica.ru), but ACCEPTS mails for users like
(s...@www.ja-maica.ru) - it tries to work as MX server for all
Youri V. Kravatsky wrote:
Hello Eric,
Saturday, September 5, 2009, 2:39:30 AM, you wrote:
What subdomains are you seeing besides @www. ?
Subdomains of our domains. Mail that goes to domains that are not
included to rcpthosts file is rejected. But mail to www.mydomain.com or
I am thinking that from a security standpoint, the preferred methods of
whitelisting would be by:
1) rDNS
2) IP
3) sender
simply because spoofing a sender is easiest and spoofing rDNS is the
most difficult.
Is this correct?
Are there other considerations?
--
-Eric 'shubes'
don't see why this can't be done. Once SPF support is added, it
should be pretty trivial to add a flag to control what spamdyke does
with it.
-- Sam Clippinger
Eric Shubert wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
Hey Sam (et al),
I just came across a situation where I wanted to whitelist
Youri V. Kravatsky wrote:
Hello Eric,
Saturday, September 5, 2009, 7:43:00 PM, you wrote:
The first test I sent to mys...@sub.mydomain.com. Interestingly enough,
it was rejected because I have @mydomain.com in my blacklist_senders
file. This is to prevent spamd where the sender address
Eric Shubert wrote:
Youri V. Kravatsky wrote:
Hello Eric,
Monday, September 7, 2009, 11:19:47 AM, you wrote:
Right, as it should be. All email from my domain *is* (at least should
be) sent through my server, where it is delivered locally. I can't
imagine why I would want to send email
Shepherd Nhongo wrote:
Howdy !
I am running qmail according to qmailrocks guide and upgraded some
servers according to John Simpson's site. Can someone with the following
help me with showing me or sending me a modified
/service/qmail-smtpd/run script? Look at my current
lenn...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote:
Dear all,
I have been reading up on the discussions on this list as well as the
concerns about databases in the FAQ. Whilst I concur with most of the
points wrt. to a fully fledged SQL database, I think that CDBs are
ideally suited for the purposes of spamdyke.
Jorge Minassian wrote:
Hello,
I am en *very* new user of spamdyke.
I reached it looking for how to avoid Qmail (in a Plesk enviroment)
mark own users as spam altough they get authenticated.
I could install and get all working.
But what I see is that incoming mail (from genuine users)
Nice piece, Sam.
In addition, the OS will likely have cached spamdyke's config file(s)
anyhow, so I expect any real performance gain would be negligible.
BL to me is that there are a host of other inefficiencies (pardon the
pun) that would bring a mail server to its knees long before
BC wrote:
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
Michael Colvin wrote:
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,
Jorge R. Constenla wrote:
Hi,
Spamdyke is great and blocks the 90% of Spam in our MXs servers.
But we need another filter to block the rest of the spam. We receive
more than 1M SMTP connections per day for many domains.
Any recommendations ?
Thanks in advance
SpamAssassin (or
While spamdyke can do both TLS and authentication, I don't see an option
for requiring TLS when authenticating. I see smtp-auth-level settings of
ondemand-encrypted and always-encrypted, but these -encrypted settings
appear to refer to cram-md5, and they effect offering the protocol, not
www.norcalisp.com
-Original Message-
From: spamdyke-users-boun...@spamdyke.org [mailto:spamdyke-users-
boun...@spamdyke.org] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:23 PM
To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Subject: [spamdyke-users] Web app for configuring spamdyke
Does
Eric Shubert:
Does anyone know of such a thing, or something someone might have worked
on at some point? I know of someone who's interested in working on such
an app, and am willing to put my 2 cents in. Does anyone know if such an
app has ever been worked on? Would anyone else care to lend
MD5's weakness though, CRAM-MD5 also requires the password(s) be
stored in clear text, which is not acceptable in some situations, and is
generally not a good practice from a security standpoint.
-- Sam Clippinger
Thanks as always, Sam. Spamdyke is unbelievably terrific!
Eric Shubert wrote
Eric Shubert wrote:
The todo file has a handfull of nice logging enhancements. Here's another.
It'd be nice to have some indicator in the log of whether TLS was used
on each session or not. This would allow easy verification that TLS is
working on each message coming in.
Thanks Sam
Will you post an example header of an email that passed spamdyke but was
tagged as spamassassin? That would allow us to help you troubleshoot.
Short of that, we can only speculate.
Markus Thüer wrote:
Hi,
I got an interesting problem.
I am running spamdyke on Plesk (8.04) for 18
BC wrote:
I'm looking to get WAY in over my head now. I'm considering going
with a 64 bit version of the *nix OS I like (FreeBSD) with my next
server install and am wondering if spamdyke (much less qmail) will work
in such an OS?
Short answer: yes with 64 bit, and I think so with
Arvydas wrote:
hello,
how come spamdyke does not block
anonymo...@myhostna.me
mailto:anonymo...@myhostna.me
if i add it to blacklist_senders
(it block all other domains, but this particular sender is not blocked..)
sincerely,
arvydas
I just upgraded spamdyke on one of my servers, and noticed that the
--config-test was taking a considerable amount of time. I determined
that it was the existing greylist tree that was making it take so long.
I ran David Stiller's clean-up-script (posted on this list 10/08/2008)
which reduced
Peter Palmreuther wrote:
Hello,
pardon me if my question has already been answered, but the overwhelming
amount of information in documentation and FAQ maybe just made me not
finding it. In this case I simple link to the answer would be appreciated.
I'm getting a lot of spam mail with
Hans F. Nordhaug wrote:
Hi - I'm new to the list but I have searched ;-)
We are running Spamdyke 4.0.10 (as included in Qmail Toaster Plus)
with idle-timeout-secs set to 60. One of my users recently got 30
duplicate messages (and wasn't happy). Looking at the logs, I see that
Spamdyke
Marcin Orlowski wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for partially off-topic thread, however not spamdyke
but qmail/spam related.
I recently noticed increased number of what I call BCC Spam.
It looks like From: is external, To: is local user (so mail
is accepted) but there're also external BCC:
#
# Copyright (C) 2010 Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
#
# This script removes old/expired entries in spamdyke's graylist tree.
#
# Original script written by David Stiller , posted on the spamdyke list.
# Enhanced by shubes to obtain parameters from spamdyke configuration,
# and do a more thorough job
nightduke wrote:
Hi i would like to know when will we released a new version of
spamdyke, i still using version of 2008.
Thanks
4.0.10 was released 12/17/08. I'm not aware of any bugs since then.
Only Sam can say for sure when a new release will be coming. Are you
looking for something in
with graylisting.Better perfomance.
2010/2/10 Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net:
nightduke wrote:
Hi i would like to know when will we released a new version of
spamdyke, i still using version of 2008.
Thanks
4.0.10 was released 12/17/08. I'm not aware of any bugs since then.
Only Sam can
Jorge R. Constenla wrote:
The SpamDyke works great! without bugs.
But is Very usefull (Excellent), if you can set some features per domain.
Two Level to filter SPAM
- General Level for all domains (the actual level)
- And add a Domain Level Filter with features like: blacklist and
nightduke wrote:
More features with graylisting,fast enable graylisting,
I don't know what you mean by this. Perhaps Sam does.
gui for spamdyke,
There has been talk about this, and I believe someone has written
something for this. I don't recall off hand though. You'll need to do
some
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
