Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2007-09-28 07:06:14, schrieb Sam Varshavchik: There is no rate metering of this kind possible, but what exactly is the negative impact from this? This is an average of three and a half probes per second, which, if you weren't looking at the logs, you would've never noticed. In

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Jeff Jansen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michelle Konzack wrote: In theorie... -- but they hit me periodicaly with over 200 per second. You're seeing 200 hits a second! From the same ip addresses or different ones all the time? Since no single ip address should be hitting your server

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Sam Varshavchik
Michelle Konzack writes: Since arround one week I have very heavy Dictionary attacs (over 30 per day from more then 7000 different IP's) on my courier-mta which servs for 17.000 users in the french gov. On the exim-user list they used the following to stop it. But how can I do this with

Re: [courier-users] Proposed extension: SKIPMAILFILTER [patch]

2007-09-28 Thread Alessandro Vesely
Sam Varshavchik wrote: Gordon Messmer writes: Sam, you've mentioned before that refactoring the code to run filters after rewriting the message would be difficult, but wouldn't you just need to move the run_filter block of code later in SubmitFile::MessageEnd? That would give filters

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Jeff Jansen
Michelle Konzack wrote: Today morning I was hit at ~08:00 CET arround 17 minutes from 86 different IP's and each IP had 30-80 hits per second. Now imagine the server support 17000 users and the switch on there computers between 08:00 and 09:00... iptables dos unfortunatly not work for

[courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Since arround one week I have very heavy Dictionary attacs (over 30 per day from more then 7000 different IP's) on my courier-mta which servs for 17.000 users in the french gov. On the exim-user list they used the following to stop it. But how can I do this with courier-mta? I like to

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2007-09-28 22:10:01, schrieb Jeff Jansen: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michelle Konzack wrote: In theorie... -- but they hit me periodicaly with over 200 per second. You're seeing 200 hits a second! From the same ip addresses or different ones all the time? Today

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread João Vale
For the paranoid (like myself), there's always fail2ban ( http://www.fail2ban.org/ ). It worked perfectly for me in stopping bruteforce attacks on my ssh port. Basically it monitors a log and bans (with iptables, for example) IPs for a period of time after a certain number of authentication

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim

2007-09-28 Thread Gordon Messmer
Michelle Konzack wrote: Today morning I was hit at ~08:00 CET arround 17 minutes from 86 different IP's and each IP had 30-80 hits per second. Which make in summary over 4.100.000 hits. My logfiles explode!!! 8 GByte in less then 17 minutes. Log entries for each hit were 20K? The

Re: [courier-users] Same problem with courier-mta as with exim [FW by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Dictionary spamming ?]

2007-09-28 Thread Tim Lyth
I'd follow Jeff's advise - rate limiting via IP tables, but I'd add -i external interface to each of those lines. I am assuming that your email server has multiple network connections and the attacks are coming from the external interface, not the internal one. That way, you don't have ANY