Pierre, Thanks for this (I'm going to put some of it on a WikiLearn page as a reminder to me), but there were some things I didn't understand in reading your pages. Questions embedded below and afterwards.
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/FightingSpam Pierre Fortin wrote: > If you have your own domain/IP, you can use PostFix' anti-spam features to greatly >refuse spam before it gets delivered... Most spam comes through "open relays" and by >blocking mail from any known open relay, we can virtually shutdown anonymous spam. >This will eventually force the spammers to use their own resources and might make >prosecution more likely; but that's orthoganal and argumentative... :^) So, I think you're saying that if I'm running my own email server on the Internet, I can make sure it's not an open relay, thus minimizing spam for others (and myself). However, even if I'm not running my own email server, I can still submit apparent open relay sites to ordb for testing and possible blacklisting. (Right?) > I've noticed that since I've begun submitting spam relay hosts to >http://ordb.org/submit/, spam attempts have dropped off to a trickle. In fact, the >spam *attempts* (blocked by postfix) have dropped from ~50-70/day to a few every >couple of days... Ok, now I understand -- the number of attempts to use your machine as a relay have dropped to a few every couple of days. > It's fun to be a spam fighter... :^) For more info, see my postfix page at >http://pfortin.com/Linux/PostFix -- also, easy to miss but potentially useful for the >mail-header-challenged is http://pfortin.com/Linux/PostFix/ORDBing.html I've looked at both these pages, and the first one should be useful to me as I try to configure postfix for my (local) server. I've reviewed the second, but I really don't understand what the key characteristic is that let's you decide which header represents the open relay. Or, do you more or less "assume" it is one of the first three and (worst case) submit the IPs from the first three received headers for testing? If that's the case, I understand. If there is something more to look for, how about looking at the headers below and tell me which (if any) of the headers represent an open relay, and how you determined that. (Aside, I don't know that this came from an open relay, I just wanted an example we could talk about.) regards, Randy Kramer Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 25565 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 20:10:18 -0000 Received: from newmx2.fast.net ([209.92.1.32]) (envelope-sender <>) by mailstore1.fast.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with QMQP for <>; 1 Feb 2002 20:10:18 -0000 Delivered-To: CLUSTERHOST newmx2.fast.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18378 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 20:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO email.qves.com) ([209.63.151.19]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) by newmx2.fast.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 1 Feb 2002 20:10:16 -0000 Received: from qvp0002 ([209.63.151.3]) by email.qves.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:07:31 -0700 From: "Become Wealthy!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Learn the Secrets of Becoming Wealthy! Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:07:31 -0700 Message-ID: <794d0201c1ab5c$147fdf30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_794D03_01C1AB21.68210730" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 Thread-Index: AcGrXBR9+75qW/pGTbmEbQQCz8fEhA== Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 20:07:31.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[148165D0:01C1AB5C] X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3006
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
