Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:11:36 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely reject
--On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:11:36 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely rejects 50 to 70% of incomi
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:24:28 -0500 "Michael K. Smith - Adhost"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Let me know if you do find a reliable, decent solution that does not
>>> involve SPF or postfix header_checks or body_che
--On Monday, October 20, 2008 10:24:28 -0500 "Michael K. Smith - Adhost"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me know if you do find a reliable, decent solution that does not
involve SPF or postfix header_checks or body_checks.
The following doesn't fix the problem but it does help mitigate the d
On Monday 20 October 2008, Michael K. Smith - Adhost said:
> > The term coined for this type of mail is "backscatter".
> >
> > There is no easy solution for this. The backscatter article on
> > postfix.org, for example, caused our mail servers to start
> > rejecting mail that was generated from PH
> The term coined for this type of mail is "backscatter".
>
> There is no easy solution for this. The backscatter article on
> postfix.org, for example, caused our mail servers to start rejecting
> mail that was generated from PHP scripts and CGIs on our own systems,
> which makes no sense. The
