Your virus database was updated at 9 august 2008, and a lot of sites are
recognised as virus threat. For example: ixbt.com, thg.ru, overclockers.ru.
Virus is:
Submission-ID: 4157162
Sender: Ricardo
Added: Email.Trojan-8
I think that this is mistake.
Yes!!! rambler.ru and utro.ru
Your virus database was updated at 9 august 2008, and a lot of sites are
recognised as virus threat. For example: ixbt.com, thg.ru,
overclockers.ru.
Virus is:
Submission-ID: 4157162
Sender: Ricardo
Added: Email.Trojan-8
I think that this is mistake.
Yes!!!
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:45:51PM +0400, Roman V. Isaev wrote:
Your virus database was updated at 9 august 2008, and a lot of sites are
recognised as virus threat. For example: ixbt.com, thg.ru,
overclockers.ru.
Virus is:
Submission-ID: 4157162
Sender: Ricardo
Added:
Henrik K пишет:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:45:51PM +0400, Roman V. Isaev wrote:
Your virus database was updated at 9 august 2008, and a lot of sites are
recognised as virus threat. For example: ixbt.com, thg.ru,
overclockers.ru.
Virus is:
Submission-ID: 4157162
Sender: Ricardo
Added:
--On 8 August 2008 13:06:00 -0400 rick pim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gerard writes:
Employing 'greylisting' would vastly improve the chances of eliminating
the acceptance of SPAM at the MTA level.
it certainly does. unfortunately, in practice, one of the
prime advantages of greylisting
--On 8 August 2008 14:16:49 -0400 David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
telnet isps-smtp-server 25
In my experience that's very unusual behaviour for a virus.
The vast majority try to connect directly to the recipient's MX.
I see both.
Regardless, your
Hi there,
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 Ian Eiloart wrote:
RFC2821 defines the behaviour of an MTA, and anything that breaks
the standard can't expect to deliver email. That's our policy here.
Hehe, I bet you'd change that policy pretty sharpish if the people
sending the emails wanted to give you
I gave you example HAVP config to stop it more easily:
IGNOREVIRUS Email.
Yes, thanks, but I saw your letter after I alredy implemented my own
solution :) I just don't want to fiddle with clamd any more until 18:00
(end of the workday). IGNOREVIRUS is a good solution.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:04:00PM +0400, Roman V. Isaev wrote:
I gave you example HAVP config to stop it more easily:
IGNOREVIRUS Email.
Yes, thanks, but I saw your letter after I alredy implemented my own
solution :) I just don't want to fiddle with clamd any more
Ian Eiloart writes:
--On 8 August 2008 13:06:00 -0400 rick pim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in practice, one of the
prime advantages of greylisting -- the fact that it will never
block 'real' mail -- turns out, um, not to be true. there are so many
standards-noncompliant MTAs out there
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, rick pim wrote:
prime advantages of greylisting -- the fact that it will never
block 'real' mail -- turns out, um, not to be true. there are so many
standards-noncompliant MTAs out there
.. some of the offenders are high profile, fortune-500 companies.
Charles Gregory writes:
but at
least please tell me there isn't a 'big' company out there that is failing
to handle 4xx codes properly (holding breath)
does IBM count?
their canadian arm was a problem for a while and i had to whitelist
their outgoing MTA. this has since been fixed, but
Charles Gregory wrote:
Could I just clarify this discussion? It started out with a specific
comment about greylisting, which I am preparing to implement. So naturally
it concerns me as to whether these remarks about 'big name' non-compliant
MTA's still apply specifically to greylisting. I
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, rick pim wrote:
prime advantages of greylisting -- the fact that it will never
block 'real' mail -- turns out, um, not to be true. there are so many
standards-noncompliant MTAs out there
.. some of the offenders are high profile,
-Original Message-
There are some big names that play badly with greylisting. They play
badly with greet-pause, too. A problem I've seen with
greylisting is the
round-robin MTA pool. Each is told in turn to come back later
and if the
pool is large it can take a long time to
Chambers, Phil wrote:
The greylisting scheme I have implemented works at the DATA phase. It
uses the sender IP address (top 24 bits only), the sender e-mail address
and header date field to form the key for the message. Once a message
has passed the greylist test the original sender IP
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, David F. Skoll wrote:
S:220 smtp.example.net Go ahead
C:MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S:220 Sender OK
C:RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S:451 Greylisted... try again later
C:RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S:451 Greylisted... try again later
C:DATA
S:500 Need recipient first
Charles Gregory wrote:
Non-compliant 'helo's and all that, but at least please tell me there
isn't a 'big' company out there that is failing to handle 4xx codes
properly (holding breath)
Try:
hotmail.com
bigpond.com
optusnet.com.au
yahoo.com [for groups particularly...]
Greylisting is
Dennis, Chuck:
Thank you - this helps. I think I have it all working now.
I appreciate your help.
--Jeff
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
19 matches
Mail list logo
