--On Monday, August 16, 2004 21:37:13 +0930 "Paul A. Hoadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:22:02PM -0700, Pat Lashley wrote:
Just FYI, Exim, with the ExiScan patches, can reject at SMTP time;
and also has a 'fakereject' capability which tells the sender that
the message ha
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:56:10AM +0100, Scott Mitchell wrote:
> I don't know how committed to qmail you are, but Exim will do this
> out of the box. I'm pretty sure it's part of the default config
> file. With the exim+exiscan patches (available from ports) you can
> get even more crea
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:22:02PM -0700, Pat Lashley wrote:
> Could you create a user to get them; and give that user a procmail
> (or similar) delivery-time script to file them into subdirs based on
> some arbitrary characteristic?
Sounds feasible. The sheer volume has overwhelmed me, though,
--On Sunday, August 15, 2004 12:30:01 +0930 "Paul A. Hoadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Good question---without context, my claim that I can do nothing else
seems wrong. What I should have said is "given I have an interest in
collecting all the spams to non-existent addresses, I don't think I
ca
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:56:10 +0100, Scott Mitchell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:30:01PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:13:32PM -0500, Gary wrote:
> There are several techniques just to block them at SMTP negotiation
> all together, so the
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:30:01PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:13:32PM -0500, Gary wrote:
>
> > There are several techniques just to block them at SMTP negotiation
> > all together, so they don't even enter your system...
>
> Techniques for qmail? Witho
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 01:06:42PM +0930 or thereabouts, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 10:25:46PM -0500, Gary wrote:
> > http://lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#smtp-reject
> >
> > which will lead you here..
> >
> > http://netdevice.com/qmail/rcptck/
>
> Thanks. I was fairly sure
Hi Gary,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 10:25:46PM -0500, Gary wrote:
> Most are patches, and very good. I use Eben Pratt's goodrcptto
> personally on my own server, and some that I have built for others
> (gives me control for accepting mail from lists only for those lists
> that do not subscribe via e
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:30:01PM +0930 or thereabouts, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> Techniques for qmail? Without patching it? I thought I had RTFMd
> pretty thoroughly, but I am willing to be enlightened.
forgot to add, there are also challange/auth mechanisms that one can use
too.. I have used
it was said:
>The original problem was that _bouncing_ these messages is
>fruitless---they almost invariably have a forged From address. I'm
>getting on average about 10,000 of them per day, so there were
>constantly several thousand messages in my queue, as well as several
>thousand bounced boun
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:30:01PM +0930 or thereabouts, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:13:32PM -0500, Gary wrote:
> > P> I'm not sure that I can make qmail do anything else. These are spams
> > P> sent to non-existent addresses at my domain, being caught by
> >
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 08:01:47PM -0700, stheg olloydson wrote:
> What I would do is avoid the problem in the first place by not
> having a .qmail-default.
Without a .qmail-default, qmail's default behaviour is to _accept_ the
message and then _bounce_ it. IMHO, this is _worse_ than (a)
"Paul A. Hoadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:13:32PM -0500, Gary wrote:
>
> > P> I'm not sure that I can make qmail do anything else. These are spams
> > P> sent to non-existent addresses at my domain, being caught by
> > P> .qmail-default.
> >
> > Quest
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 10:27:29PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> I have to second this. You should never accept email destin for
> users that don't exist, you should bounce it with a 5xx error prior
> to even accepting the data portion of the SMTP transmission.
I agree completely. I can't see how
it was said:
>I'm not sure that I can make qmail do anything else. These are spams
>sent to non-existent addresses at my domain, being caught by
>.qmail-default. What I am going to do is clear out the Maildir daily
>instead of monthly, though. Collecting them has become a significant
>drain on
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:13:32PM -0500, Gary wrote:
> P> I'm not sure that I can make qmail do anything else. These are spams
> P> sent to non-existent addresses at my domain, being caught by
> P> .qmail-default.
>
> Question... why do you have a .qmail-default file to begin with? If
>
Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:09:55 +0930 UTC (8/14/2004, 8:39 PM -0500 UTC my
> time), Paul A. Hoadley trunco scripsit:
>
> >> Reducing the number of processes spawned will certainly help some,
> >> but a better idea is to not have so many files in a sing
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:09:55 +0930 UTC (8/14/2004, 8:39 PM -0500 UTC my
time), Paul A. Hoadley trunco scripsit:
>> Reducing the number of processes spawned will certainly help some,
>> but a better idea is to not have so many files in a single directory
>> - that is just asking for troub
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 08:11:54PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> Where is '.' in the above `find .' command? Is it is on the same
> partition as /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/ ?
>
> You may find it much faster to do something like:
> mkdir usermail.new
> chown user:group usermail.new
>
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:39:33AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> find . -atime +1 -print0 | xargs -0 -J % mv % /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/
>
> xargs defaults to taking up to 5,000 arguments from it's stdin to
> generate the mv commands (or up to ARG_MAX - 4096 = 61440 bytes), so
> that would h
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 01:32:35AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> You seem to have missed the fact that operations on very large
> directories (which a directory with 400K files in it certainly
> qualifies as) simply are slow.
Good point. I had overlooked that.
> Reducing the number of processes
At 8:31 AM +0930 8/15/04, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
Hello,
I'm in the process of cleaning a Maildir full of spam. It has
somewhere in the vicinity of 400K files in it. I started running
this yesterday:
find . -atime +1 -exec mv {} /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/ \;
It's been running for well over 12 hours
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:31:43AM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm in the process of cleaning a Maildir full of spam. It has
> somewhere in the vicinity of 400K files in it. I started running
> this yesterday:
>
> find . -atime +1 -exec mv {} /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/ \;
>
> It'
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:31:43AM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm in the process of cleaning a Maildir full of spam. It has
> somewhere in the vicinity of 400K files in it. I started running
> this yesterday:
>
> find . -atime +1 -exec mv {} /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/ \;
>
> It'
Hello,
I'm in the process of cleaning a Maildir full of spam. It has
somewhere in the vicinity of 400K files in it. I started running
this yesterday:
find . -atime +1 -exec mv {} /home/paulh/tmp/spam/sne/ \;
It's been running for well over 12 hours. It certainly is
working---the spams are slo
25 matches
Mail list logo
