* fy f...@5dshu.com:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
The best goes like this:
1. Decide if the SMTP client should be allowed to connect to the server
2. Decide if the client should be allowed to send the message
3. Decide if the message should be
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
If you can afford using a separate boundary SMTP (and, thanks to virtual
machines, this is much more common than just a few years ago), MailAvenger
is likely to be a very good
On 07/24/2012 06:49 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 11:58 +0800, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
amavisd-new with spamassassin and anti virus scanner, clamav with
sanesecurity rules
use enforcing rules in mail server,
forwarding to the proper list address since your reply came with a
Reply-To header
-- Forwarded message --
From: mailing list subscriber mailinglist...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: official dev team position regarding multiple times
requested feature
What is the purpose of this posting?
On 7/24/2012 9:27 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote:
forwarding to the proper list address since your reply came with a
Reply-To header
Regards,
Stephan.
sorry folks, please ignore me. my head is is spinning trying to get
hardlinks and default sieve script working at the same time, writing
to dovecot and cyrus at the same time. one is doing the hardlink part
good, and the other the sieve. both fail to get both features right at
the same time. the
Am 24.07.2012 10:22, schrieb fy:
于 2012/7/24 15:16, Arnaud Abélard 写道:
On 07/24/2012 06:49 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 11:58 +0800, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
amavisd-new with spamassassin and anti virus
于 2012/7/24 16:29, Robert Schetterer 写道:
Am 24.07.2012 10:22, schrieb fy:
于 2012/7/24 15:16, Arnaud Abélard 写道:
On 07/24/2012 06:49 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 11:58 +0800, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
amavisd-new
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
i got best results with dspam + graylist. but dspam is not scalable
solution, it works only if you do not have many users.
On 24.07.2012 09:16, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
And first of all, even if this is not dovecot related, use a
greylisting solution.
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and
delays the mail traffic.
I would prefer a pre-queue content-filtering solution like MIMEDefang
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:49:48 +0200
Von: Morten Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com
An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org
Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] what best for anti-spam filter?
On 24.07.2012 09:16, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
And first of all, even
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:20:08 +0200
Von: Radim Kolar h...@filez.com
An: fy f...@5dshu.com
CC: dovecot@dovecot.org
Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] what best for anti-spam filter?
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Morten Stevens
mstev...@imt-systems.com wrote:
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and delays
the mail traffic.
Since when? RFC5321 was updated to handle delays and then there is RFC6647.
--
.warren
24.07.2012 10:49, Morten Stevens:
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and
delays the mail traffic.
No. Rejecting mail with an temporary error is perfectly RFC compliant.
It happens all the time without greylisting. Because the authors of the
SMTP RFC knew that
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:38:00AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Greylisting only stops bots. It is resource intensive, and causes
delivery delays. There exist bot spam killing solutions that are just
as effective, with less downside. Two are Postfix' postscreen daemon,
and fqrdns.pcre, which
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:48AM +0200, Morten Stevens wrote:
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant
Of course it is. Have you readen RFC 6647?
and delays the mail traffic.
Greylisting with whitelist and reputation-based greylisting delay
makes it painless.
--
The RICE university is using dspam on about 65K mailboxes without issues:
http://it.rice.edu/spam.aspx
it works with such large number of user only if you use group shared
spam/ham dictionaries.
On 07/24/2012 10:49 AM, Morten Stevens wrote:
On 24.07.2012 09:16, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
And first of all, even if this is not dovecot related, use a
greylisting solution.
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and
delays the mail traffic.
I would prefer a
On 07/24/2012 10:38 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/24/2012 2:16 AM, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
And first of all, even if this is not dovecot related, use a greylisting
solution.
Greylisting only stops bots. It is resource intensive, and causes
delivery delays. There exist bot spam killing
On 07/24/2012 11:45 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:38:00AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Greylisting only stops bots. It is resource intensive, and causes
delivery delays. There exist bot spam killing solutions that are just
as effective, with less downside. Two are
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:03:55PM +0200, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
Have you considered using some dnswl (whitelist) to turn off greylisting
for some hosts?
I do not do it, but it is trivial to configure milter-greylist
for that usage: just add a whitelist acl based on a DNSRBL lookup.
--
On 24.07.2012 11:50, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:48AM +0200, Morten Stevens wrote:
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant
Of course it is. Have you readen RFC 6647?
Okay, you're right.
Here is it from June 2012:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 11:12 +0200, Warren Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Morten Stevens
mstev...@imt-systems.com wrote:
No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and delays
the mail traffic.
Since when? RFC5321 was updated to handle delays and then
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:57:18 +0200
Von: Radim Kolar h...@filez.com
An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org
Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] what best for anti-spam filter?
The RICE university is using dspam on about 65K mailboxes without
issues:
Morten Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com writes:
So it is now RFC compliant. Anyway I think delaying mail traffic is not
a good solution.
Well, OK, if you not keen on greylisting, you can try greet pausing,
which introduces a shorter delay.
It tests a bot's patience by inserting a pre-HELO
On 24.07.2012 12:33, Noel Butler wrote:
When we looked at it years ago, it did little to stem the tide of
spam,
all it did was over give us a negative impact by delays of legit
mail,
some servers are also poorly configured and dont try resend for a
long
period of time, especially if their
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Joseph Tam jtam.h...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, OK, if you not keen on greylisting, you can try greet pausing,
which introduces a shorter delay.
This, works well. Interesting your sweet spot is around 20seconds, I
found 13s to be the right mark.
--
.warren
On 24.07.2012 12:51, Joseph Tam wrote:
Morten Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com writes:
So it is now RFC compliant. Anyway I think delaying mail traffic is
not
a good solution.
Well, OK, if you not keen on greylisting, you can try greet pausing,
which introduces a shorter delay.
It tests a
Am 24.07.2012 10:41, schrieb fy:
于 2012/7/24 16:29, Robert Schetterer 写道:
Am 24.07.2012 10:22, schrieb fy:
于 2012/7/24 15:16, Arnaud Abélard 写道:
On 07/24/2012 06:49 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 11:58 +0800, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian?
Morten Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com wrote:
So it is now RFC compliant. Anyway I think delaying mail traffic is not
a good solution.
This is why whitelists and autowhilists are used in greylist filters.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
24.07.2012 11:57, Arnaud Abélard:
- With greylisting we aren't rejecting potentially spammy mails, we are
rejecting misbehaving servers. That's important, legally speaking. We
could be in trouble if we rejected an important mail by mistake when our
server actually accepted it.
That's
On 2012-07-23 3:12 PM, mailing list subscriber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM, mailing list subscriber wrote:
I'm trying to get the so-called single instance store (I think cyrus
has got the name for the first time) with dovecot --version = 2.0.19
binary package installed from ubuntu
On 24.07.2012 13:44, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
Morten Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com wrote:
So it is now RFC compliant. Anyway I think delaying mail traffic is
not
a good solution.
This is why whitelists and autowhilists are used in greylist filters.
Okay, and where are your whitelists at
On 7/24/2012 7:13 AM, Morten Stevens wrote:
Jul 24 12:27:32 mx1 sendmail[31933]: q6OARUOM031928:
to=dovecot@dovecot.org, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp,
pri=152317, relay=dovecot.org. [193.210.130.67], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
(Ok: queued as 35AF81AE8359)
Jul 24 12:28:32 mx1
On 2012-07-24 3:16 AM, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
And first of all, even if this is not dovecot related, use a greylisting
solution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't postscreen mostly make greylisting
unnecessary?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:06 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
You must not accept mail you are unwilling or unable to deliver - ever!
That insisted behaviour was changed four years ago, read up on RFC 5321
IIRC
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 07:22 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/24/2012 7:13 AM, Morten Stevens wrote:
Jul 24 12:27:32 mx1 sendmail[31933]: q6OARUOM031928:
to=dovecot@dovecot.org, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp,
pri=152317, relay=dovecot.org. [193.210.130.67], dsn=2.0.0,
On 07/24/2012 02:06 PM, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
24.07.2012 11:57, Arnaud Abélard:
- With greylisting we aren't rejecting potentially spammy mails, we are
rejecting misbehaving servers. That's important, legally speaking. We
could be in trouble if we rejected an important mail by mistake when
24.07.2012 14:30, Noel Butler:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:06 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
You must not accept mail you are unwilling or unable to deliver - ever!
That insisted behaviour was changed four years ago, read up on RFC 5321
Where does it say so?
IIRC
I doubt you do.
People,
this is a mailing list dedicated to Dovecot and the protocols POP, IMAP and
MANAGESIEVE with the one or the other detour to storage.
Greylisting and other Anti-Spam techniques, as discussed in this thread,
truely are off-topic. Please take discussion offlist or to another list that
deals
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/24/2012 7:13 AM, Morten Stevens wrote:
[...]
Jul 24 12:50:53 mx1 sendmail[32518]: q6OARUOM031928:
to=m...@netbsd.org, delay=00:23:23, xdelay=00:00:02, mailer=esmtp,
pri=332317, relay=mail.netbsd.org. [149.20.53.66], dsn=4.7.1,
stat=Deferred: 450
We have a user who wants to use Outlook with our Dovecot IMAP server but
doesn't like the way Outlook handles deletion with IMAP.
Ironically she would like Outlook to move the message to her Trash
folder, just like Outlook does with local folders, I guess.
So I enabled the deleted-to-trash
on 7/24/2012 7:51 AM Steve Platt spake the following:
We have a user who wants to use Outlook with our Dovecot IMAP server but
doesn't like the way Outlook handles deletion with IMAP.
Ironically she would like Outlook to move the message to her Trash folder,
just like Outlook does with local
On 24 Jul 2012, at 15:51, Steve Platt wrote:
We have a user who wants to use Outlook with our Dovecot IMAP server but
doesn't like the way Outlook handles deletion with IMAP.
Ironically she would like Outlook to move the message to her Trash folder,
just like Outlook does with local
Try this:
http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/
On 7/23/2012 8:58 PM, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ? dspam?spammassian? amavisd-new ? what is
best ?
Greetings,
In doing some debugging of authentication issues, I'm wondering if these
SSL warnings are anything to be investigating?
Jul 24 11:23:16 triata dovecot: imap-login: Warning: SSL: where=0x10,
ret=1: before/accept initialization [192.168.70.101]
Jul 24 11:23:16 triata dovecot:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:31 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
24.07.2012 14:30, Noel Butler:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:06 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
You must not accept mail you are unwilling or unable to deliver - ever!
That insisted behaviour was changed four years ago,
and like all the other constant off-topic crud here, you are free to
filter it out if you don't wish to see it.
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:46 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
People,
this is a mailing list dedicated to Dovecot and the protocols POP, IMAP and
MANAGESIEVE with the one or
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 10:16 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Try this:
http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/
It's also a good idea to place a disclaimer when advertising _your_
products and services on someone else's list
On 7/23/2012 8:58 PM, fy wrote:
what anti-spam for you used ?
Hi all,
I've just migrated my mail system from procmail to managesieve/sieve and
I'm having trouble trying to duplicate a could of rules I used to use in
my procmail config.
One particular rule would be this:
:0 Wfh
* ^Sender: owner-scientific-linux-de...@listserv.fnal.gov
| (sed -e
Hello.
This is in Dovecot 2.1.7 on Linux x86, but it looks as though 2.1.8 has the
same issue. I'm using fts-lucene. SEARCH HEADER TO returns no results, but
SEARCH TO works:
B SEARCH TO TEST
* SEARCH 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 27 28 29 31
B OK Search completed
51 matches
Mail list logo
