Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This won't
reject any mail sent from a MTA that correctly implements SMTP. According
to the SMTP specs, I am perfectly at liberty to tell you that I can't
accept your mail right now, please try again later. =20
But isn't the point
On Saturday 27 January 2007 02:16, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Fri, 2007-Jan-26 09:24:58 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
like I said, for my understandings firewall implemention for spam fighting
is wrong
because you reject the message
Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about bandwidth
consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth
consumption and resources on both sides
Most spammers do not bother to return if they
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about
bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase
bandwidth consumption and resources on both sides
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:32:54AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
To defeat this, wouldn't a spammer just have to send out the same spam twice
in a row from the same machines, spaced apart by a little time?
Yes. But in practice, most spammers don't bother. They don't use a real
SMTP server, but
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
Roland Smith wrote:
Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
bandwidth consumption.
...
Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me
Roland Smith wrote:
Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
bandwidth consumption.
This conversation is getting rather OT for -stable, but I felt the need to
ask a question:
To defeat this,
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:57:08PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about
bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly
On 2007.01.27 13:04:28 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
Roland Smith wrote:
Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
bandwidth consumption.
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:04, Roland Smith wrote:
That's not a bonus. Think about it. Sending a message twice will cut the
spammer's mail delivery rate at least in half.
nobody cares about this, what counts is the hit rate, more you get delivered
merrier the return, that means more you
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:23:13PM +0100, Simon L. Nielsen wrote..
On 2007.01.27 13:04:28 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
Roland Smith wrote:
Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
That's the whole point of doing
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:23, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
Could this discussion please be continued on the apropriate list which
is designed for spam - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lists.freebsd.org Mailing Lists
No such list devnull
could you please provide correct information in order to follow
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:04:28PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another
tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a while,
but eventually they'll catch on and it will only cause unnecessary delays
for legitimate
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:39, Roland Smith wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:04:28PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another
tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a
while, but eventually they'll catch on
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:34-0200, JoaoBR wrote:
could you please provide correct information in order to follow your
instructions?
plz
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe,
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:50:26 -0200
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that is certainly a technical and political excuse which nobody want
to hear for getting email late, because the common understanding is
getting an email on earth within some minutes
everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
Take this
On Saturday 27 January 2007 14:19, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
Take this discussion off the -stable list!
are you my boss or something?
go swimming in your fjord, eat some lemmings and cool down man
--
João
A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e
On 2007-01-27, JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 14:19, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
Take this discussion off the -stable list!
are you my boss or something?
go swimming in your fjord, eat some lemmings and cool down man
No, he's not your boss. You, on
On Saturday 27 January 2007 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, he's not your boss. You, on the other hand, are a moron and a
complete menace to the usefulness of this mailing list. Take your
whining about whatever it is to some place that wants to hear it and
leave the FreeBSD-stable list
JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, he's not your boss. You, on the other hand, are a moron and a
complete menace to the usefulness of this mailing list. Take your
whining about whatever it is to some place that wants to hear it and
leave the
On Thursday 25 January 2007 11:18, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
all this methods are certainly useless, stay calm ok
I fully sympathize with your need to rant, but in this context most of
what you say is really quite beside the point. Please read what the
On Fri, 2007-Jan-26 09:24:58 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
like I said, for my understandings firewall implemention for spam fighting is
wrong
because you reject the message
Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This won't
reject any mail sent from a MTA that correctly implements
On Thursday 25 January 2007 04:08, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
For purposes of making the subject less true, setting up greylisting
with an optional tarpit for known baddies can be very effective. See
Dan Langille's recent Onlamp article[1] or for that matter my tutorial[2]
for how this is
Woah you just made my day
Saying dspam or greylisting is useless ;)
I hope you mean that by ironic -
no you cannot block 100% spam but 99.99% effectivly which I already do
even productive.
But not with sendmail (who is using sendmail these days?)
cheers
JoaoBR wrote:
On Thursday 25 January
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:11:43PM +0100, Georg Bege wrote:
Woah you just made my day
Saying dspam or greylisting is useless ;)
I hope you mean that by ironic -
no you cannot block 100% spam but 99.99% effectivly which I already do
even productive.
But not with sendmail (who is using
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
all this methods are certainly useless, stay calm ok
I fully sympathize with your need to rant, but in this context most of
what you say is really quite beside the point. Please read what the
material at the links provided actually says.
any firewall based
Hi there,
I know it's not the right list to write to, but I'll still try a shot.
I'm running sendmail in my FreeBSD box and wish to block mails comming
from domains with no ptr configs.
Am I missing something?
My sendmail-rx.mc is like this
FEATURE(`access_db',`hash -TTMPF -o
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:03:06 -0200
Gustavo Feijó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FEATURE(`dnsbl', `sbl.spamhaus.org', `550 Mail from
Try replacing with 'zen.spamhaus.org'. Can't comment on the
others. Are you only using RBLs for spam prevention?
HTH,
Dominic
On 1/24/07, Gustavo Feijó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I know it's not the right list to write to, but I'll still try a shot.
There is freebsd-isp@, as well :)
I'm running sendmail in my FreeBSD box and wish to block mails comming
from domains with no ptr configs.
Am I missing
For purposes of making the subject less true, setting up greylisting
with an optional tarpit for known baddies can be very effective. See
Dan Langille's recent Onlamp article[1] or for that matter my tutorial[2]
for how this is done using PF and spamd - this way it doesn't matter much
which
30 matches
Mail list logo
