I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
use to kill them when seen?)
I can google, but many of those advices tell to use
On man 03 jan 2011 13:28:12 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
I want a good coverage, but not too many false positives. What do you
use to block a spammer at SMTP connect?
google on dbl.spamhaus.org and zen.spamhaus.org
all this in mta time, use more postfix buildt in rules to reduce dns
querys
In article 20110103143854.16122gzwrvkrf...@mail.junc.org you write:
On man 03 jan 2011 13:28:12 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
I want a good coverage, but not too many false positives. What do you
use to block a spammer at SMTP connect?
google on dbl.spamhaus.org and zen.spamhaus.org
Agreed. I
On 1/3/11 10:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
Agreed. I also find that bl.spamcop.org now works well with low
false positives. It used to have terrible FP, but they fixed it.
I would hope that a mass spam run from a compromised aol/hotmail/gmail
account would trigger some SA points on the aol smtp
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
On 1/3/11 10:49 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
a spot check of rdns shows 'ddd.sub-ccc-bbb-aaa.myvzw.com
On 1/3/2011 7:28 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
use to kill them when seen?)
I can
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works great.
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to
biology?
On 03/01/11 15:56, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 1/3/11 10:49 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
a spot check
John Levine said:
Rob McEwen said:
To be extra clear, the kind of sender's list I was talking about
wouldn't be the same as a yellowlist because it would ALL types of IPs
(black, white, yellow). Except everyone... including spammers... would
have to jump through some hoops to get a single IP
On man 03 jan 2011 17:36:48 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
and spamhaus drop list, just me that hopped it would have a list of
dynamic ip included, but this is not the propose of there drop list
--
xpoint
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works great.
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
As I understand limit of free queries is sufficient
On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works great.
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
As I
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works great.
Many have said this. Thanks to all who
On 3.1.2011 20:44, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-122011.html
Further on the topic of RBL's, I wrote this article yesterday for add-on
DNSBL's for spamassassin.
(BTW, I do agree that zen.spamhaus.org is an excellent choice for outright
blocking of spam.)
Warren
Le 03/01/2011 13:28, Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
use to kill them when seen?)
Please reconsider... and how about this twist...
Let the IP registrars (arin.net, etc) add a very nominal fee for
allowing networks to designate particular IPs as being used for SMTP.
Haven't you just reinvented whitelisting? I think it's pretty likely
that people will make lists of IPs known
Not to speak for Rob, but...
Haven't you just reinvented whitelisting? I think it's pretty likely
that people will make lists of IPs known to be mail clients to keep
down the filtering load, but there's still the problem that bad guys
can sign up so you have endless compliance problems.
I
On 02/01/2011 11:30 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Here's a wild idea that might prove a point. Create a set of meta rules
which is a combination of every set of two rules.
meta COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 (RULE1 RULE2)
describe COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 RULE1 and RULE2
score COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 0.1
Then run stats to
On 1/3/2011 9:21 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
Not to speak for Rob, but...
Dave,
You described my point quite well and I appreciate your help! What I
described is vastly different than whitelisting and has massive
upsides. I haven't yet found any noteworthy downsides.
Overall, this discussion thread
On 1/3/11 9:34 PM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
BTW - Ironically, it is all the more of an upside that spammers could freely
pay registrars for as many IPs to have SMTP designation as desired because,
quite frankly, that is a lesser evil than the registrars ever getting
political
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 08:30:43AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Here's a wild idea that might prove a point. Create a set of meta
rules which is a combination of every set of two rules.
meta COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 (RULE1 RULE2)
describe COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 RULE1 and RULE2
score COMBO_RULE1_RULE2
Frankly, I'd think that besides costing the spammers money (a good thing in
and of itself) it would also be a pretty good spamsign if a block has more
than, say, 5 or so registered senders in a /64. Just thinking out loud
here
There are a lot of non-spam mail systems with a heck of a lot more
On 01/04/2011 04:50 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
Frankly, I'd think that besides costing the spammers money (a good thing in
and of itself)
...spammers steal other people's resources - so they'll pay nothing...
The best case scenario we can ever hope for is that they will be stuck
sending all their
25 matches
Mail list logo
