k express to use SMTP user/password
> > with mail.clinet_domain.com as incoming/outgoing.
> >
> > even if they send from x...@client_domain to ad...@mydomain.com
> > both are in same server, I will still receive it as SPAM.
> > (They are sending from outlook.)
>
>
On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Marwan Sultan wrote:
> they configure their outlook express to use SMTP user/password
> with mail.clinet_domain.com as incoming/outgoing.
>
> even if they send from x...@client_domain to ad...@mydomain.com
> both are in same server, I will still rec
Dear Dr. Matthew.,
When my client or any clients uses the web mail that i have configured,
then everything works fine NO spam problems and email will be
received by hotmail, gmail and vise versa.
I found out that this particular client complaining because they use
outlook
On 21/10/2010 01:10, Marwan Sultan wrote:
> if I check that domain in mxtoolbox.com
> it complains "Warning - Reverse DNS does not match SMTP Banner"
> could it be the SMTP banner flagging the mail as spam?
This is certainly possible. It would add spam points on my serve
(the domain they send
> from) to hotmail/yahoo..etc..
> flagged as spam! i have googled and found most of problems about forward,
> reverse DNS.
> for me PTR, reverse DNS matchs the domain name. all the 8 domains matchs
> reverse, PTR.
Since you didn't provide an example DS
Hello list..
Well! im kinda lost here..
I have like 8 domains hosted in my server. FreeBSD 7.2R, sendmail,
openwebmail, spamassassin, milter all installed.
I have few customers complaining that thier emails (the domain they send
from) to hotmail/yahoo..etc..
flagged as spam! i have
pr=kern/146792
> a "fix" is also in the report
>> I have a spam gateway running:
>>
>> spamassassin
>> clamavis
>> amavis
>> apache+mailgraph
>> postfix
>> bacula client
>> apcupsd client
>>
>> My server is running freebsd
On 10/06/2010 09:40 AM, perikillo wrote:
> Hi my friends I have a big issue that I still cannot track what is
> causing that my server stop working.
>
may be this bug?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/146792
a "fix" is also in the report
> I have
Hi my friends I have a big issue that I still cannot track what is
causing that my server stop working.
I have a spam gateway running:
spamassassin
clamavis
amavis
apache+mailgraph
postfix
bacula client
apcupsd client
My server is running freebsd 8.0-p2 AMD64. Raid-1.
Copyright (c) 1992-2009
. Otherwise instead of help that organization will be giving more
problems besides the ones they have.
I will try openwebmail.
Thanks a lot.
At 01:54 a.m. 08/08/2010, Marwan Sultan wrote:
Hi..
For WebMail that has everything you want:
www.opebwebmail.org
For pop3 :
qpopper
For Spam:
SpamAssassin
Its www.openwebmail.org NOT opewebmail - typo :)
If you need any help setting things up for your non-profit organization, let me
know.
>
>
> Hi..
>
> For WebMail that has everything you want:
> www.opebwebmail.org
>
> For pop3 :
> qpopper
>
> For S
Hi..
For WebMail that has everything you want:
www.opebwebmail.org
For pop3 :
qpopper
For Spam:
SpamAssassin
Default sendmail is good.
all the above is available from ports, I would recommend a manual install for
openwebmail instead of ports
so you can follow and know how things work
Anti-virus, the only free one I know about is calm av. Should work on
FreeBSD: http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/ and /usr/ports/security/clamav
spamd is a black/white list spam filter. I also heard SpamAssassin is
good, but can't find it in ports.
For mail I like Courier-imap. It&#
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I am looking documentation for implementing, the easiest way anti virus and
> anti spam configuration for non tech users and out of the box after
> installing FreeBSD (actually using 7.3 Release).
[snip]
Do not
Hello all.
I am looking documentation for implementing, the easiest way anti
virus and anti spam configuration for non tech users and out of the
box after installing FreeBSD (actually using 7.3 Release).
I have been working with it for some years but I am not an expert at
all. I need to help
On 5 jul 2010, at 18:16, Modulok wrote:
> Hopefully this doesn't get too garbled by various mail clients:
>
> Internet
> |
> FreeBSD router
> |
> (tagged frames)
> |
> switch
> ||
> vlan1 vlan2
> ||
> hostAhostB
>
> Criteria:
>- HostA must never directly t
Hello all.
I have a small machine with Freebsd 7.3, it is running sendmail for a
few email accounts.
I'd like to implement, the easiest and most secure way to do it since
machine is on a remote place where I have not access, I'd like to
implement a spam filter and an antivirus. I
t;
> The larger the number of 'victims' I can show _actual_proof_ of, the more
> of a reaction I'll be able to stir up.
>
> The 'fun-and-games' -- They are in out-and-out violation of that mostly
> *useless* piece of legislation known as CAN-SPAM. Their *
- They are in out-and-out violation of that mostly
*useless* piece of legislation known as CAN-SPAM. Their *forgery* of the
"From: " line to show the address of the mailing-list is a clear violation
of 15 USC 7704 (a) (1). What's even -more- fun, is that they are going to
shoot themse
postmaster here is the whois info on mpcustomer.com
as you can see there is a phone number to call.
Why haven't you called to report this problem?
Registration Service Provided By: UK2 Group
Contact: hostmas...@westhost.com
Visit: http://uk2group.com
Domain name: mpcustomer.com
Registrant Cont
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:00:27PM -0500, John wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:59:45AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
> > > I have done a monkey-simple spam t
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:59:45AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
> > I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
> > a dozen or more user accounts that haven
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/04/2010 20:31:06, John wrote:
> I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
> a dozen or more user accounts that haven't been actually used in over five
> years and get dozens of spam hits every day. I
> "John" == John writes:
John> Grr. I just expired the first address, at four hours old, and
John> IMMEDIATELY got a bunch Pfizer spams that were just delayed...
John> This is certainly not an easy nut to crack.
If it were easy, they wouldn't need entire teams of people at
$LARGE_ISPs to
e size.
> John> I already have two dozen entries.)
>
> You'll have a lot of collateral damage. I've worked with a lot of
> schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
> inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
> message fro
e size.
> John> I already have two dozen entries.)
>
> You'll have a lot of collateral damage. I've worked with a lot of
> schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
> inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
> message fro
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:46:41PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 27/04/2010 20:31, John wrote:
> > This seems to be working pretty well, and I'll eventually take the
> > print statement out, but I'm not sure why I had to make /dev/pf
> > public read/write in order to get the pfctl command to w
On 27/04/2010 20:31, John wrote:
> This seems to be working pretty well, and I'll eventually take the
> print statement out, but I'm not sure why I had to make /dev/pf
> public read/write in order to get the pfctl command to work.
>
> What is the best solution to be able to add to my spammers table
age. I've worked with a lot of
schemes over the years for spamfighting. A lot of spam is sourced
inside corporate or educational choke points, meaning that a spam
message from inside a company would block all remaining mail from that
company. So, for this to work, you really need to time
I have done a monkey-simple spam trap. It just so happens that I have
a dozen or more user accounts that haven't been actually used in over five
years and get dozens of spam hits every day. I had been just sending
them all to /dev/null with a sendmail alias.
It seems to me that thes
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:36:11PM +0100, Erik Norgaard wrote:
> Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
> >> - why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
> >> based that's the place to block.
> >
> > I'm already under the University firewall. Only port 22 is let through.
> > But even
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
- why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
based that's the place to block.
I'm already under the University firewall. Only port 22 is let through.
But even that filles my logs.
What I meant was that if you want to block IPs or ranges of IPs
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:42:06AM +0100, Erik Norgaard wrote:
> Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
> > I get brute force ssh attacks.
>
> This is a returning topic, search the archives. Anyway, the returning
> answer:
>
> - why not let your firew
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
This is a returning topic, search the archives. Anyway, the returning
answer:
- why not let your firewall do the blocking? If your blocking is IP
based that's the place to block.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
> I get brute force ssh attacks.
>
> HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
>
> # Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
> # need to do it, here's how
> #sshd : .evil.c
unctionality -- eg. sendmail will
> > apparently go through all of the stages of accepting an incoming e-mail
> from
> > a denied host, right up to the 'MAIL FROM...' section of the SMTP
> transaction
> > where it will respond with a 500 permanent failure error code
Anton Shterenlikht writes:
> I'm very grateful for all advice, but I'm still unsure
> why denying ssh access to a particular host via /etc/hosts.allow
> is a bad idea.
As far as I recall, the reason the warning was added to the manual was
that it's fairly heavy on resources to implement that way
f the SMTP transaction
> where it will respond with a 500 permanent failure error code. [admittedly
> this does have the benefit that the other side will then immediately give up
> trying to send the message if it's playing by the RFC rules. (Most spam-bots
> don't, of co
#x27;s playing by the RFC rules. (Most spam-bots
don't, of course.) Otherwise, you'ld get the remote side retrying the message
several times an hour over the next 5 days before it timed out and gave up.
Also, apparently in older ssh there was DenyHosts option,
but no longer in the curr
from IPs I know, preferably static
IPs.
Given that there are more than one general blacklists out there that
list unwanted behavior, and that we have ports that make use of these
lists, I wonder if we can use a list (in this case, for spam)
effective for blocking ssh connections. This means:
in
> where the heck it's coming from, it's blocked. It's easier to say it
> this way: I allow ssh connections from IPs I know, preferably static
> IPs.
>
> Given that there are more than one general blacklists out there that
> list unwanted behavior, and that we have
are very
strict, in fact, if the remote IP is "unknown" meaning, I don't know
where the heck it's coming from, it's blocked. It's easier to say it
this way: I allow ssh connections from IPs I know, preferably static
IPs.
Given that there are more than one general
David Southwell wrote:
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
#sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
Why is it not a good i
> I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
> I get brute force ssh attacks.
>
> HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
>
> # Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
> # need to do it, here's how
> #sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
>
> Why is it not a good idea?
I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
I get brute force ssh attacks.
HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
# Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
# need to do it, here's how
#sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
Why is it not a good idea?
Also, apparently in
2009/10/30 Matt Szubrycht :
> That's not normal... but then, what is these days?
> You probably saved some webpage instead of the actual iso (or whatever other
> format you were trying for)
>
> As old video games used to say: 'Try again?'
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Clayton
That's not normal... but then, what is these days?
You probably saved some webpage instead of the actual iso (or whatever
other format you were trying for)
As old video games used to say: 'Try again?'
Cheers,
Matt
On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Clayton Wilhelm da Rosa wrote:
Hi my name is Cl
Andrey O.Sokolov wrote:
I tried both variant on both NIC - fxp and em
The result doesn't change ;(
You should post to net@ and maybe the maintainer will help
you. Include pciconf.
Perhaps off topic, but why are you interested in priority
tags, since FreeBSD will silently ignore them?
I deve
У Ср, 2009-08-05 у 20:41 +0300, Nikos Vassiliadis пише:
> >> Is the vlan hardware processing enabled?
> >
> > How I can enable this processing?
> >
>
> "ifconfig em0 vlanhwtag" enables vlan processing in hw
> "ifconfig em0 -vlanhwtag" disables vlan processing in hw
> Maybe one these will work c
alu avec [IMG]
> moteur intégré et donc invisible. Consultez le site
> Fruit d'une collaboration avec un www.ac-verandas.ch
> ingénieur spécialiste en motorisation,[IMG]
> ce
In response to Roberto :
> Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
> different pages like:
> http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
> and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
> through my website.
Thanks for
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Roberto wrote:
> Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
> different pages like:
> http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
> and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
> through
Hello. I'm receiving a lot of spam e-mails that links to your domain like to
different pages like:
http://11.a21a15.free-bsd.org/6f8n1jb6n97.html
and many others. Can you stop this ? They sends mail to me
through my website.
Please answer me.
Thanks,
Ro
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:22:27 -0800
"Jason Irwin" wrote:
>In accordance with the University Winter Closure schedule, I will be
>out of the office Friday, December 19th - Monday January 5th. I will
>check voice mail and email upon my return in January.
Wonderful; another misconfigured OoO program
In accordance with the University Winter Closure schedule, I will be out of the
office Friday, December 19th - Monday January 5th. I will check voice mail and
email upon my return in January.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.
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 rou
--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
nerates almost no
>> complaints. This does help obfuscate the valid/invalid addresses because all
>> mail is accepted as far as the sender is concerned until the IP is blocked at
>> the network layer.
>>
>> The usual complaint is from an remote office that has 12 real es
rk layer.
The usual complaint is from an remote office that has 12 real estate agents
behind a single IP, all with Outlook set to check mail "sooner than now." :-)
The best solution *by far* that I have found for spam (using Postfix) is
mail/postfix-policyd-weight. It routinely rejects
nd a single IP, all with Outlook set to check
> mail "sooner than now." :-)
>
> Mike
SpamAssassin also has a backscatter feature, you just have to enable
it. It tags backscatter and hands it off to procmail. From there you
can easily do whatever you want with the tagged mail i
> 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
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:59:17AM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>
> > In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
> > from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
> > using my email address in spam from multiple windows mac
the entire internet abides by these
> > rules[*], use
> > of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> > prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
>
> I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
> My mail provider publishes SPF recor
Edwin Groothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses.
When this happens I
> In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
> from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
> using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
> addresses.
When this happens I enable the "move all messages
net abides by these
> > > rules[*], use
> > > of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> > > prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
> >
> > I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
> > My mail provider
internet abides by these
rules[*], use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being re
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
--On Thursday, October 16, 2008 09:01:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address i
; that spammers will check that their spam is spf compliant.
I feel the same way and thanks for adding some humor to the situation.
Actually that wasn't a joke, some people do cite that as the reason
why SPF helps with backscatter, that spammers will leave your domain
out of the "mail from&
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:38 AM, RW wrote:
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would exacerbate
backscatter not improve it.
The main problem resulting in backs
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:38 AM, RW wrote:
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would
exacerbate
backscatter not improve it.
The main problem resulting in backscatter happens when forged spam
from
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:58:44 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi__:
>
> > Many people recommend SPF for backscatter, but I've yet to hear a
> > cogent argument for why it helps beyond the very optimistic hope
> > that spammer
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:01:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam fr
technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers,
Luke Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these
rules[*], use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
prevent the
spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started
Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
email address in spam from multiple windows mach
d DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectatio
timate bounce messages from
email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my email
address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses. The end
result is that I am getting the bounce messages. I'm sure that others on
this list have experienced the problem
DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> > prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
>
> I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
> My mail provider publishes SPF records.
SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expect
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
> email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
> email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses.
> The end
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these rules[*],
use
of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely prevent the
spammers from joe-jobbing you.
I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
is using my
|> email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses.
|> The end result is that I am getting the bounce messages. I'm sure that
|> others on this list have experienced the problem and maybe have a
|> solution that I don't have.
|>
|&
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:01:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
> email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my
> email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addr
--On Thursday, October 16, 2008 09:01:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses.
t; In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages from
> email services as a result of someone having used or worse is using my email
> address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip addresses. The end
> result is that I am getting the bounce messages.
In the last hour, I've received over 200 legitimate bounce messages
from email services as a result of someone having used or worse is
using my email address in spam from multiple windows machines and ip
addresses. The end result is that I am getting the bounce messages.
I'm
At 10:37 PM 9/8/2008, Michael wrote:
Derek Ragona wrote:
I have a FreeBSD 7 release I wanted to use as a host for virtual
machines. What software is anyone else using to host virtual machines
under FreeBSD?
I'd just like to here what has worked, or what has not worked. I find it
easier t
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Matthew Seaman schrieb:
> If you're using sendmail as your MTA, then look at
> implementing the following features in your $(hostname).mc:
Would that mean a file called
/etc/mail/pukruppa.net.mc
in my case? Since I get
# hostname
pukruppa.net
or do I
Sorry, I forgot to post to the list!
Matthew Seaman schrieb:
> Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
>> Steve Bertrand schrieb:
>>> Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
>
>>>> for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my
>>>&g
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Matthew's message beat me to the response but I had typed
one. There are some great
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Steve Bertrand schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with
my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
The only way to tell for certain is to review
On Aug 27, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
1) How is this possible?
Forging email headers is trivial. You can
Steve Bertrand schrieb:
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my
own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
How have you identified that they are actually being delivered by
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 11:40 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
> > server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
> > ([EMA
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
How have you identified that they are actually being delivered by your
server itself?
It
Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small) mail
> server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even with my own
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> 1) How is this possible?
> 2) What can I or do I have to
Hello,
for some time now I keep receiving spam mails from my own (small)
mail server, some of them with faked usernames some of them even
with my own ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
1) How is this possible?
2) What can I or do I have to do against it?
I am running a quite plain sendmail setup from
At 07:49 PM 8/15/2008, Tom Stuart wrote:
I have tried doing the forwarding via /etc/mail/aliases and it worked
identically as it was with the /root/.forward. The mail does go through
but gets delayed 5+ minutes, however when I send mail interactively using
mailx or mail commands the receiving m
At 07:53 PM 7/30/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply!
I created the array in the Adaptec BIOS and confirmed it with an XP
installer disk, which gave me the option to install to the array as I had
named it.
I have to apologise for not having the actual dmesg handy but i
Thanks for the quick reply!
I created the array in the Adaptec BIOS and confirmed it with an XP
installer disk, which gave me the option to install to the array as I
had named it.
I have to apologise for not having the actual dmesg handy but
identifies the disks much like the example below,
101 - 200 of 898 matches
Mail list logo
