Now I see it! THANKS.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Fritz Borgstedt f...@iworld.de wrote:
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
For example: Let's say I've got a catchall set up for @[
http://domain.edu ]http://domain.edu to deliver to [
Back in December, I started a discussion: Catchall Address /
RejectTheseLocalAddresses, but it fizzled out.
Fritz- does the 1.5x code consider the rejecttheselocaladdresses list when
CatchAlls are being used?
For example: Let's say I've got a catchall set up for @domain.edu to deliver
to
cmar...@media-brokers.comwrote:
On 12/12/2008, Ken Post (nntp.p...@gmail.com) wrote:
Say what you will about wildcards, etc, but we've found it a terrific
way to have the administration be able to give out email addresses to
websites without giving out their real account information.
I use
yeah, that looks like my little code snippet.
That's in the section where local addresses are validated. If an address
matched the reject list, then, yes a log entry is made, but it never will
check the local address file, so it should be rejected when ASSP does its
thing since the address will
Back in September, I suggested and wrote the simple code for *
RejectTheseLocalAddresses*
My production environment has a mail server that has catchall address
ability.
In my LocalAddresses_Flat file I've got entries like:
@domain1.com
@domain2.com
This lets all mail for @domain1.com through,
-brokers.comwrote:
On 12/12/2008 8:19 AM, Ken Post wrote:
Back in September, I suggested and wrote the simple code for
/RejectTheseLocalAddresses/
My production environment has a mail server that has catchall address
ability.
I don't know of a real smtp server that DOESN'T have this ability
Fritz-
Any chance of you making a post here when you update 1.4.1 or 2.0?I know
that you're not interested in keeping a change log, but at least being
notified when there's a change would be quite helpful.
I tried setting up a service to monitor the webpages that you post the code
to, but
a page is considered
updated.
you can get it here http://updatescanner.mozdev.org/en/index.html
Greetings,
Frank
Ken Post wrote:
Fritz-
Any chance of you making a post here when you update 1.4.1 or 2.0?I
know that you're not interested in keeping a change log, but at least being
Thanks for removing the robots restriction! It worked.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried setting up a service to monitor the webpages that you post
the code to, but your site is prohibiting robots.
Try again.
excellent. appears fixed.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strangely in the log, there seems to now be [URIBL] listed in log
lines for good messages from whitelisted users.
That was a bug fixed in .31.
I do not know what happened, nevertheless I
I though it's NOT supposed to delay whitelisted users unless you have
DelayWL checked.
Whitelisted Greylisting *(DelayWL)*
Enable Greylisting for whitelisted users.
My idea is to leave this unchecked. Whitelisted people get delayed too,
UNLESS they've been sent to very recently, so an incoming
Will do. I just downloaded assp.pl from your website, but the mod version
shows .30 in the file. I'm not sure if this is really .31 or it's .30.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please test this with .31
I just confirmed with .30 or .31 (whichever is actually posted on the site
now) that whitelisted users DO correct get delayed if the delaywl is
checked. Good news for me, as this was broken before.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would allow
I was wondering what people would think of the possibility of ASSP having
the functionality to not delay whitelisted email addresses that have been
added in the last x minutes?
This would allow replies to come in without delay for new senders (who have
been sent to, or whitelisted in some other
I have a potentially unique case where our backend smtp server has come
wildcard / catchall mailboxes set up.
I've added these mailboxes as @domain.tld in the local addresses flat file.
We have not experimented with assp catchalls, but you wouldn't want to have
@domain.tld in the flat file and
In my 1.4.1.1.21 installation, I've got
Do URI Blocklist Validation for Whitelisted (URIBLWL)
Do URI Blocklist Validation for NoProcessing (URIBLNP)
Do URI Blocklist Validation for Local Mails (URIBLLocal)
Do URI Blocklist Validation for ISP/Secondary (URIBLISP)
all checked.
I'm running the
Good point. Technically, they are rejected with
550 5.1.1 User unknown: EMAILADDRESS
which to the sender will be just like a bounce, but you're right, it's a
rejection.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Charles Marcus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On 9/11/2008, Ken Post ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Charles Marcus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On 9/11/2008, Ken Post ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Good point. Technically, they are rejected with
550 5.1.1 User unknown: EMAILADDRESS
which to the sender will be just like a bounce, but you're right, it's a
rejection
OK. Fritz and others: here's the updated code:
After:
['LocalAddresses_Flat_Domains','Use Addresses without \'@\' as
Domains',0,\checkbox,0,'([01]?)',undef,'Will handle entries without \'@\'
as full domains'],
Add:
['RejectTheseLocalInvalidAddresses','Reject These Local Invalid
I see that 1.4.1.1.25 came out today. Is there a build by build changelog
by chance, so we can know what's been updated in the last 4 builds? This
would definitely make other client specific cusomizations that were
necessary be easier to reimplement as the builds are updated.
Also, Fritz, on
Thanks Fritz. That's what I assumed, but wanted to make sure.
May I suggest changing the function name to:
ConfigMakeUserListRe
or something similar? The SL in the function name initially mislead me to
believe that it was only for spam lovers.
Also, I suggest modifying the comment...
On Wed,
Also maybe consider renaming the allSL and allSH functions to reflect their
apparent more widespread usage?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
Fritz- it looks like the sub
Hi all-
I'm just getting started with v2 after a long time on 1.0.9 (yep, that's
old) and a quick try with 1.3.3.10 which keeps timing out.
I installed 2.0 (19) on a new Win 2003 server machine, activeperl 5.08.08
(build 824). I ran the mod_inst.pl script to install all of the modules and
I have a user who has a wildcard @hisdomain.com. He gives out different
email addresses to different websites, but sometimes wants me to turn
specific addresses off due to an influx of spam to that particular address.
I hacked 1.0.9 and 1.3.3.10 to do this using a BounceRecipientAddresses
mad.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Eckardt/eck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is normal - we have 2.0.0 system running on Windows 2003 SP2 with 1.6
GB RAM!
Thomas
*Ken Post [EMAIL PROTECTED]*
Gesendet von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09.09.2008 19:52 Bitte antworten an
ASSP
Yes, but the wildcard functionality that I am using is on the real smtp
server, not implemented via assp. I'm thinking about having ASSp do it, but
wasn't sure if there is a way to still bounce some addresses. I'm not
talking about spamtrap or spam only addresses, but for these addresses
giving
26 matches
Mail list logo
