Hi Everbody
I have a freebsd-6.0 server with postfix and mailman running on this
machine ,
but I havn't configured spamassasin ,amavisd etc in this box. so I am
suffering from spams daily ..
Since I am a new be to FreeBSD , let me requset you to share your expertise
(the steps how to in
y
low cost but that's not the same thing as having a very low value. Most
spam is delivered overnight and on the weekend. I think that there are
two reasons for this. The older reason is to keep the bots off of the
RBLs. But I think that the bigger reason to deliver spam off hours is to
p
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:01 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: John Levine; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> I would disagree on the
NO. I'm making it sound like greylisting is NOT the world's answer to
stopping spam. It's NOT a miracle cure, it is NOT the last, best hope
for peace.
Sigh. You might want to read the paper "Experiences with Greylisting"
from the 2005 CEAS conference.
It was my o
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: John Levine; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
You're making it sound as if greylisti
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:08 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: John Levine; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> You're making
is apparently impossible
because users need their email as an instant messaging service. The
possibility of establishing a domain into a whitelist or testing a
connection and notification system periodically, which would put his
domain into their imaginary whitelist, is simply too inconvenie
On Apr 30, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I don't understand why people are focusing on trying to redesign
the monitoring system I'm using. Don't you have any imagination
at all? The point was that there are legitimate situations where
the delays introduced by greylisting are a pr
o this. For example,
clickatell.com offers a HTTP POST to SMS gateway quite cheaply, about
10 cents a message at low volumes.
Having been dealing with spam for over a decade, I cannot tell you how
tired I am of people whining that the world better not implement some
effective anti-abuse techni
sucky cell plan that doesn't give you X number of
free text messages. You even start saying you have a life and don't
want to put up with the messages once a week because it's such a hassle
but don't seem to mind putting up with one or two spam messages having
to be
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Both of those are assumptions your making that are
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:16:23AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> The system that would cause problems if it ran
> greylisting is not MY system. It's the mailserver owned by the cellular
> company that I am sending to. If they went and installed greylisting
> it is highly unlikely I could get
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenny Dail
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:18 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> > > I'm monitoring system
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:31 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> >> Email is not an instant messagi
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:40 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Eric Crist; Grant Peel; Christopher Hilton;
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Christopher Hilton; User Questions
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> >
> > Both of those
> > I'm monitoring systems at the ISP I work at. No, it is not life or
> > death
> > if a feed goes down for 3 hours and a bunch of people cannot download
> > their daily freebsd-questions mailing list fix. At least, I don't
> > think
> > so. But they do. And as their money that buys the IS
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sam Lawrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:59 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Email is not an instant
>> Email is not an instant messaging system, no matter how much you want
>> it to be one.
>
>Cell phone companies won't take pages any other way no matter how much you
>want them to.
This might be a good time to learn about outfits like clickatell.com
that provide SMS gateway service. They char
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:00 AMApr 29, 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
If the monitoring system notices something down, I have to know about
it within a few minutes. I cannot wait for the mailserver that
sends the
page out to retry sending the page to the cell carrier's mailserver
in an hour.
Thi
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Christopher Hilton; Grant Peel; Eric Crist;
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:01 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Eric Crist; Grant Peel; Christopher Hilton;
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Lawrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:59 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
>
> Email is not an instant messaging
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail
address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server
failur
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
Hilton
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: User Questions
Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Ted
-- Was: Anti Spam
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail
address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server
failure.
I
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
> Hilton
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: User Questions
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaed
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:58 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Christopher Hilton; Grant Peel; Eric Crist;
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
&
ur putting so much faith in the delaying, is simply
that you aren't getting a lot of spam.
I have published e-mail addresses. Without greylisting I got about
1500-2000 mail messages a day to each of them.
Greylisting isn't just about delaying. IIRC greylisting is filtering fo
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are legitimate technical reasons that someone may want their
mail
to not be greylisted. For example, my cell phone's e-mail address is
in our monitoring scripts to page me in the event of a server failure.
I would be pretty pissed o
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Sean Hilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:05 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; User Questions
> Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> [snip...]
>
&g
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[snip...]
Greylisting works because many, and I'd like to say most, spam programs
never retry message delivery.
Actually, no. Greylisting works because it delays the spam injector
long enough that the injector will get blacklisted by the time that the
greylist
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher
> Hilton
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:25 PM
> To: Grant Peel
> Cc: Eric Crist; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
>
Just my $0.02. Have you considered adding greylisting. I find the
combination of greylisting and Spamassassin with the SA's bayes filter
completely handles my spam problem. On my primary MX I use spamd on
OpenBSD and on my secondary MX I use spamd on FreeBSD. As a very
informal meth
>> We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we
>> have been employing Spamassassin locally and using some 3rd party
>> Anti-Spam servervices that are getting less and less reliable as the
>> weeks go by.
>>
>> We are considering two hardwar
recently.
Also make sure you're running the URI-RBLs, dcc and razor2.
Third party rules from www.rulesemporium.com are a must are as is the the
imageinfo plugin.
You could always ask on the spamassassin users list for advice on tuning
you
setup and get some of the spam you get analysed by
Hi Grant,
I'm using postfix and a very good sets of pcre rules which takes care of
more than 90% of all spam.
Spamassassin will do the rest. The only spam I receive is on my postmaster
account.
Postfix uses greylisting, a set of rbl lists and a pcre rule set op the helo
chec
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Derek Ragona spaketh thusly:
-}
-}If your volume of mail is >5 per day don't use the baracuda. It won't
-}keep up.
I think this greatly depends on the model. I've not used the 200 but it
certainly is a small box. My experience shows the 600 could easily handle
this per
he spamassassin users list for advice on tuning you
setup and get some of the spam you get analysed by those of us running well
tuned SA setups so you know which extra rulesets will help.
Go on as on the SA users list, we're a friendly bunch and will help you with
your problem.
--
Martin
On
>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Anti Spam
On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:43 AMApr 20, 2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directl
Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing
From: "Grant Peel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me
or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up u
On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:43 AMApr 20, 2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of
ISPs using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback,
either directly to me or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam
At 11:43 AM 4/20/2007, Grant Peel wrote:
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have
rectly to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing Spamassassin locally and using some 3rd party Anti-Spam servervices
that are getting less and less reliable as the weeks go by.
We are considering two hardware solutions, Easyan
> I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
> using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
> directly to me or to the list.
I work for an ISP with a mix of freeBSD and Linus servers.
> We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with sp
Grant Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
> FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me
> or to the list.
>
> We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up unti
I found this article and it helped alot. I rarely have any spam get through.
Thee are 2 parts to this so maker sure you goto page 3 and scroll to the
bottom of the page for a link to page 2 if you don't want to read this
section
http://www.crn.com/white-box/188701471?pgno=1
--
Darrell
[
Also look into postfix along with policyd-weight
(http://www.policyd-weight.org/).
That's all I use and I probably get about 2 spam a day... I used to get
40-50... in a nutshell it checks multiple dnsbls and uses a scoring
system to block it before you ever get the message body. A
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Peel
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:43 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Anti Spam
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs
using FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either
directly to me or to the
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Grant Peel spaketh thusly:
-}Hi all,
-}
-}I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
-}
-}We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up
Hi all,
I am posting this question here because I know there are alot of ISPs using
FreeBSD (including me) and am hoping to get feedback, either directly to me or
to the list.
We are wrestling (as I am sure many are), with spam. Up until now we have been
employing Spamassassin locally and
Hi Olivier,
With the flash9 plugin I also get a blank box in the browser window
where the flash animation should be. Using flash7 fixes the problem.
Rgds/Mark
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 13:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Selon Mark Hannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hello Olivier,
> >
> > I have
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 18:26:20 Kevin Kinsey wrote:
> Beni wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > When reading through my dmesg, I found this sysctl error/message : sysctl
> > : hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest : Invalid argument. Now there is no mention what
> > so ever of that option in my /etc/sysctl.conf, so I d
Angelin Lalev wrote:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about some tool
Angelin Lalev wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Gary Kline wrote:
What I got caught on was "client," altho from the context,
here ``client'' seems to mean the mail-server-sending-spam.'
In the unix world, my server is the client--unless the
client-serve
t; 30-minute intervals. I also set the autowhite value much higher than
> the default of 3 days (2 weeks), so frequent sending machines never
> leave the whilelist.
>
What I got caught on was "client," altho from the context,
here ``client'' s
In the last episode (Apr 03), Gary Kline said:
> I've been experimenting with greylisting for months. Not sure the
> regular mail filter installs or not, but the devel version installed
> just now perfectly.
>
> Is there any tutorial on this or should I just re-read the man pages
> and other docs
elin Lalev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:49:19PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Apr 03), Angelin Lalev said:
> > My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
> > blacklist enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam messages
> > a day
Angelin Lalev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
> black= list enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam
> messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
how about greylisting? putting something like a grey
In the last episode (Apr 03), Angelin Lalev said:
> My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
> blacklist enabled and etc. but I still receive over 20 spam messages
> a day ("image" spam mostly).
>
> The situation with other users may be
[mailed and posted]
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Angelin Lalev wrote:
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the
blacklist enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users ma
On Apr 2, 2007, at 17:08, Kurt Buff wrote:
Do you receive mail from lists such as this one?
Do you receive mail from non-responding mailboxes, such as network
notificationss, etc.?
Do you care about your new correspondents?
If you answer 'yes' to any of these messages, then a Challenge/Respo
r you.
Instead, since you are already using SpamAssassin, and the problem
seems to be image spam, you should probably try installing FuzzyOCR
instead, which is in ports.
# make search name=fuzzyocr
Port: p5-FuzzyOcr-2.3.b_2,1
Path: /usr/ports/mail/p5-FuzzyOcr
Info: Plugin for SpamAssassin wh
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Angelin Lalev wrote:
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist
enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was think
Hi List,
My e-mail server is running the latest spamassassin with all of the blacklist
enabled and etc.
but I still receive over 20 spam messages a day ("image" spam mostly).
The situation with other users may be worse. That's why I was thinking about
some tool that
1.
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then I don't see how it prevents spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a DSN
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus sender and
is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific definition -- look in the RFCs a
TECTED] then I don't see how it prevents
spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a
DSN to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus
sender and is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific definition -- look in the RFCs as I don&
is or if it somehow relies on the ability to deliver a
message via smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then I don't see how it prevents
spam.
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a
DSN to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus
sender and is refused.
ROTECTED] then I don't see how it prevents spam.
As the above poster says SPF is the way to go. SPF gives the receiving
MTA a mechanism to vet inbound mail. For any combination of and there are three possible results
from an SPF check: The server is allowed to send mail for the domain;
The serv
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:00 -0400, Marcelo Maraboli wrote:
I agree. callbacks are not enough, you can reach a
false conclusion, that´s why I use SPF along with callbacks...
on the same message, my MX concludes:
"you are sendin
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:00 -0400, Marcelo Maraboli wrote:
>
> I agree. callbacks are not enough, you can reach a
> false conclusion, that´s why I use SPF along with callbacks...
>
> on the same message, my MX concludes:
>
> "you are sending email "from [EMAIL PROTECTED]", but shire.net
> s
John L wrote:
I phrased it wrong. You are not responsible for the content, but you
are responsible for the mail domain and that includes verifying that
mail is validly from your domain you are responsible for.
Oh, OK. So if someone sends pump and dump with a [EMAIL PROTECTED] return
addre
sting technology. The counter
measures always cost more than the sending of the spam
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 10, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Kelly Jones wrote:
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given email sender. Is there a Unix tool that does
this?
The basics are simple: to validate "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", I connect to
the
onfirmed that the mail is from you, after all
No. His MX has only verified his email address, which does not say
he sent the msg.
Then what was the point?
"His MX has only verified his email address"
Len
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mail
onfirmed that the mail is from you, after all
No. His MX has only verified his email address, which does not say he
sent the msg.
Len
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
fication
traffic has always been small compared to our overall load.
You are complaining about a non issue. I can say that address
verification helps us reject the lion's share of spam we receive
without having to process it further.
Chad
Don't forget that the From: line ad
I phrased it wrong. You are not responsible for the content, but you are
responsible for the mail domain and that includes verifying that mail is
validly from your domain you are responsible for.
Oh, OK. So if someone sends pump and dump with a [EMAIL PROTECTED] return
address, and I do a ca
tack hosts in a separate easy to block IP range.
Amazing, as I run mail for lots of domains, and replying to sender
verification is almost a nonexistent load compared to the mail bombs
and bounces etc.
Show me your numbers.
What planet have you been on? A few years back spam return
dresses than there was
>before.
What planet have you been on? A few years back spam return addresses
were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
I've had to locally blacklist a few places specifically because of
heir attack hosts in a separate easy to block IP range.
>> What planet have you been on? A few years back spam return addresses
>> were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
>> picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
>
>They have been do
, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique,
in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
evade it -- use "real" sender a
have you been on? A few years back spam return addresses
were typically complete fakes in nonexistent domains. Now they're
picked out of the same victim lists as the targets.
They have been doing that for ages. I run a hosting service and have
had that problem way before sender ver
Perhaps we are talking about different things, I am talking about
systems which send me an email back requiring me to do steps a, b or c
in order to complete delivery of the email.
that's challenge/response, which has been widely discredited for years.
SAV is a receiving MX probing the MX of
Justin Mason wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
> >>>as an anti-spam technique.
> >>>
> >>>Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique,
> >>>
On Mar 11, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
LLC wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verific
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> >
> >for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
> >as an anti-spam technique.
> >
> >Sender-address ver
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers looking to
evade it -- use "real" sender addresses. Wher
2007 19:28
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; users@spamassassin.apache.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tool for validating sender address as spam-fighting technique?
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given email sender. Is there a Unix tool that does
this?
The basics are simple: to validate "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", I connect to
the MX record of wnonline.net and go as far as "RCPT TO" as f
--On Tuesday, February 06, 2007 09:46:14 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh, another thing. I've used H&R Block's online tax accounting service,
and although it's not the best interface, it's just as good as some
copies of Turbotax that I've seen.
You used it with FreeBSD? What browser? And d
Paul Schmehl writes:
> Uvscan is McAfee's antivirus product. Did you install it? There's a conf
> file in the files directory of that port. It defines AVSCANNER as "/usr/
> local/bin/uvscan". That would require that you have McAfee Antivirus for
> FreeBSD installed. If this machine handles lots of
in
to spam or other folders if you generate a large wordlist.
One category of junkmail, however, is not true spam. It
is more a form of hacking in that it tries to implant viruses
like Johny Appleseed only this guy is Johny weedseed.
I got antivirus-milter to make and install
Has anyone gotten the port
/usr/ports/mail/antivirus-milter to work?
The system in question runs FreeBSD5.4 with sendmail and
bogofilter. Bogofilter is excellent at helping sort messages in
to spam or other folders if you generate a large wordlist.
One category of
MTA @ macbilling.com is rejecting the bounce.
>
> Most likely spam using a forged (or real) address
> @macbilling.com was sent to your system to
> @highperformance.net and of course your system could
> not deliver the message so it bounced.
As another idea, if these are being ge
"Jason C. Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a bunch of mail piling up in /var/spool/mqueue. It appears to be
> all spam and it appears to be generated on the localhost. I am not
> sending it.
Like Jeff said, this looks very much like bounces generated by s
301 - 400 of 898 matches
Mail list logo
