Peter-
> My solution was this: Set up and OpenBSD box doing spamd plus any content
> filtering
> during receipt to a world-facing SMTP server on the same box. Make that box
> the
> publicly visible MX for the relevant domains, but set up the smtpd, postfix
> or exim
>
Thank you for your insight. I believe you are exactly correct. I have
previously run OpenBSD as my router and spamd in the classic setup, so
that is my past experience base. I was hoping to use it in this situation
as just a proxy in front of the mail server, but that seems to be getting
outside
cols, you could NAT inbound requests to the .16 address, but this is
smtp... you want the source IPs for spamd purposes, etc.)
I’m sure there’s something I’m missing, but I
haven’t been able to figure out what. Any insight is most appreciated.
tcpdump or wireshark are a good way to see req
On 2022-05-27, Arete wrote:
> I’m setting up spamd in front of a Postfix mail server, and am having
> an issue with rdr-to rules not working the way I expect.
>
> My setup: Re-purposed Mac Mini running MacOS 12.4 Monterey, Postfix &
> Dovecot, smtp port-forwarded to this b
Hello-
I’m setting up spamd in front of a Postfix mail server, and am having
an issue with rdr-to rules not working the way I expect.
My setup: Re-purposed Mac Mini running MacOS 12.4 Monterey, Postfix &
Dovecot, smtp port-forwarded to this box from my firewall. OpenBSD 7.1
running
On 2022-04-15, alejan...@rogue-research.com
wrote:
> Hi Mr Hansteen,
>
> Thanks for the reply, I started my journey with OpenBSD this week and I
> decided to buy your book to help me understand its PF system, it's been
> very helpful. I've been reading man pages fr
Hi Mr Hansteen,
Thanks for the reply, I started my journey with OpenBSD this week and I
decided to buy your book to help me understand its PF system, it's been
very helpful. I've been reading man pages from pf,spamd,opensmtpd and
sysctl, perhaps I just need more reading and tim
Greetings everyone,
First time posting here and so bear with me please :)
I have a mail server I don't want to touch; I want to set up another
machine in front of it running spamd.
I have tried using `rdr-to` instead of `divert-to` but neither seem to
work
This is what my pf rules look li
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 09:49:43AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
>
> How do you maintain the contents of the /etc/mail/spamd-white file?
>
> As in, do you have a cron job or similar that dumps the contents of the
> table there?
>
This little tidbit of necessary informa
On 2021-10-28 12:06:24, Zé Loff wrote:
From the man page:
For the add, delete, replace, and test commands, the list of
addresses can be specified either directly on the command
line and/or in an unformatted text file, using the -f flag.
So:
pfctl -t spamd-white -T add -f
On 2021-10-28 12:58, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:55:33AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Hi folks,
my pf.conf contains
table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
I understand that I can add and delete hosts from the table manually
later, but on very la
>> I don't know how atomic that is: is the table either empty
>> or does it contain all the addresses in the file? I would
>> guess the addresses are added as they are read, just like
>> when you add them manually.
>>
>
>That is a wrong guess. pf tries to do things atomically when it makes
>sense
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:15:45PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Oct 28 11:55:33, harald.dun...@aixigo.com wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > my pf.conf contains
> >
> > table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
> >
> > I understand
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:55:33AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> my pf.conf contains
>
> table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
>
> I understand that I can add and delete hosts from the table manually
> later, but on very large ta
On Oct 28 11:55:33, harald.dun...@aixigo.com wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> my pf.conf contains
>
> table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
>
> I understand that I can add and delete hosts from the table manually
> later, but on very large tables this is
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:55:33AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> my pf.conf contains
>
> table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
>
> I understand that I can add and delete hosts from the table manually
> later, but on very large ta
Hi folks,
my pf.conf contains
table persist file "/etc/mail/spamd-white"
I understand that I can add and delete hosts from the table manually
later, but on very large tables this is pretty painful. There is a high
risk that the table has just been flushed and is not up-t
Hi Martin,
On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:24:29 + Martin wrote:
> I can't find in spamd(8) how to enable IPv6 listener ...
I thought there was an unofficial patch put up somewhere several years
ago, but I can't find it now. This is the nearest my searching got:
https://undeadly.o
Hi Peter,
Great book of PF. I've read it early in 2015, very useful.
Since last updates all the incoming connections to my mail servers are IPv6,
unfortunately. Just before the updates it was IPv4, so spamd has been used for
all the incoming connections outside whitelists of known peers.
> 12. mai 2021 kl. 15:24 skrev Martin :
>
> Hi list,
>
> I can't find in spamd(8) how to enable IPv6 listener in addition to IPv4 one.
>
> Is it possible to set spamd(8) to listen on both IPv4 and IPv6?
Unfortunately spamd is IPv4 only.
Back in the day (2014
afaik spamd(8) does not support ipv6 (yet).
I also do not know if there is any ongoing effort for ipv6 to be added.
On 5/12/21 9:24 AM, Martin wrote:
Hi list,
I can't find in spamd(8) how to enable IPv6 listener in addition to IPv4 one.
Is it possible to set spamd(8) to listen on both
Hi list,
I can't find in spamd(8) how to enable IPv6 listener in addition to IPv4 one.
Is it possible to set spamd(8) to listen on both IPv4 and IPv6?
Martin
Am Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:46:28AM -0400 schrieb Aisha Tammy:
> afaik spamd(8) does not support ipv6 (yet).
> I also do not know if there is any ongoing effort for ipv6 to be added.
>
> On 5/12/21 9:24 AM, Martin wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I can't find in spam
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 06:28:29PM +, Nick Guenther wrote:
> February 22, 2021 1:22 PM, "Edgar Pettijohn" wrote:
>
> > Have you tried starting spamd with '-l ::1' to alter its address to bind
> > to?
>
> I hadn't! But it's no help:
>
February 22, 2021 1:22 PM, "Edgar Pettijohn" wrote:
> Have you tried starting spamd with '-l ::1' to alter its address to bind
> to?
I hadn't! But it's no help:
comms# /usr/libexec/spamd -l ::1 -d -v -G 15:4:864 -C
/etc/letsencrypt/live/comms.kousu.ca/ful
Have you tried starting spamd with '-l ::1' to alter its address to bind
to?
Edgar
On Feb 22, 2021 10:11 AM, Nick Guenther wrote:
July 1, 2020 7:34 AM, "Harald Dunkel"
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> spamd(8) still mentions 127.0.0.1, but no indication of I
July 1, 2020 7:34 AM, "Harald Dunkel" wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> spamd(8) still mentions 127.0.0.1, but no indication of IPv6 support.
> Looking on Google for "openbsd spamd ipv6" gives me some entries of
> 2015 and 2016, but no up-to-date information. Pleas
Hi folks,
spamd(8) still mentions 127.0.0.1, but no indication of IPv6 support.
Looking on Google for "openbsd spamd ipv6" gives me some entries of
2015 and 2016, but no up-to-date information. Please excuse if I am
too blind to see.
I am a big fan of spamd, but I wonder is spamd in
Hello, Peter.
How can I help you to maintain EU server in a good shape? I think spam related
AS is really good tool to all the people in the community who use spamd engine.
Martin
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 4:40 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> Hi Martin
>
using BGP as configured.
:But both AS rs.bgp-spamd.net eu.bgp-spamd.net points to the same IP address
according to ping:
:
:ping eu.bgp-spamd.net
:217.31.80.170
:ping rs.bgp-spamd.net
:217.31.80.170
:
:Which system can be used for redundancy? Any other spamd-AS online?
:
:$ cat /etc/bgpd.conf
:AS
I'm going to have spamdb updates from AS using BGP as configured.
But both AS rs.bgp-spamd.net eu.bgp-spamd.net points to the same IP address
according to ping:
ping eu.bgp-spamd.net
217.31.80.170
ping rs.bgp-spamd.net
217.31.80.170
Which system can be used for redundancy? Any other spa
Denis Fondras wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:54:22AM -0400, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>>> Hi devs and all,
>>> I have been using spamd for quite a while and have been loving it.
>>> I've seen that spamd currently only supports ipv4 and have been
>>>
Oh that is really good to hear :)
Thanks a lot phessler!
Here is to hoping it can be included in the next release.
Thanks a lot again,
Aisha
On 4/3/20 12:28 PM, Denis Fondras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:54:22AM -0400, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>> Hi devs and all,
>> I have b
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:54:22AM -0400, Aisha Tammy wrote:
> Hi devs and all,
> I have been using spamd for quite a while and have been loving it.
> I've seen that spamd currently only supports ipv4 and have been
> wondering if it was possible to extend it to ipv6. I know th
2020 at 08:54:22AM -0400:
>
>> I have been using spamd for quite a while and have been loving it.
>> I've seen that spamd currently only supports ipv4 and have been
>> wondering if it was possible to extend it to ipv6. I know that workforce
>> is always limited so I
Hi Aisha,
Aisha Tammy wrote on Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:54:22AM -0400:
> I have been using spamd for quite a while and have been loving it.
> I've seen that spamd currently only supports ipv4 and have been
> wondering if it was possible to extend it to ipv6. I know that workfor
Hi devs and all,
I have been using spamd for quite a while and have been loving it.
I've seen that spamd currently only supports ipv4 and have been
wondering if it was possible to extend it to ipv6. I know that workforce
is always limited so I wanted to know if there is anyway to contribute
Hello,
I notice quite a few hosts without rDNS/FCrDNS getting whitelisted by
spamd.
I reject hosts with no rDNS using the following in my crontab:
(spamdb|for i in `awk -F'|' '/GREY/{print $2}'`; do if ! host $i >/dev/null;
then spamdb -dG $i; fi; done)
It works, but i
Op Fri, 31 May 2019 00:34:39 +0200 schreef Mik J :
Hello,
I'm back again with spamd synchronisation.
I made further tests and it seems to me that only new entries in spamd
are synchronised.
All existing entries before the synchronisation and not sent to the
other spamd instance.
Hello,
I'm back again with spamd synchronisation.
I made further tests and it seems to me that only new entries in spamd are
synchronised.
All existing entries before the synchronisation and not sent to the other spamd
instance.
Is it supposed to work like that ?
Thank you
Le dim
On May 26, 2019, at 04:41, Mik J wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm coming back on this topic. I added the -K option
> # /usr/libexec/spamd -v -s 5 -S 5 -w 1 -G5:24:2400 -l 127.0.0.1 -h
> myhost.mydomain.org -y vmx0 -Y myhost2.mydomain.org -K /etc/mail/spamd.key -n
> AB
Hello,
I'm coming back on this topic. I added the -K option
# /usr/libexec/spamd -v -s 5 -S 5 -w 1 -G5:24:2400 -l 127.0.0.1 -h
myhost.mydomain.org -y vmx0 -Y myhost2.mydomain.org -K /etc/mail/spamd.key -n
ABCD
# spamd: need key and certificate for TLS
So it seems it expects some ki
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 10:43 AM Thuban, wrote:
> * Otto Moerbeek le [21-04-2019 12:49:07 +0200]:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 09:53:52AM +, Mik J wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > I read the man but it's not so clear to me
> > > https://man.ope
* Otto Moerbeek le [21-04-2019 12:49:07 +0200]:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 09:53:52AM +, Mik J wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I read the man but it's not so clear to me
> > https://man.openbsd.org/spamd#SYNCHRONISATION
> > a) I chose unicast synchronisation b
Hello Otto,
Thank you for your answer. I'm working on it right now.
Regards
Le dimanche 21 avril 2019 à 12:50:08 UTC+2, Otto Moerbeek
a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 09:53:52AM +, Mik J wrote:
> Hello,
> I read the man but it's not so clear to me
> https://ma
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 09:53:52AM +, Mik J wrote:
> Hello,
> I read the man but it's not so clear to me
> https://man.openbsd.org/spamd#SYNCHRONISATION
> a) I chose unicast synchronisation but I don't know which port should I open
> on the firewall ?
> Is i
Hello,
I read the man but it's not so clear to me
https://man.openbsd.org/spamd#SYNCHRONISATION
a) I chose unicast synchronisation but I don't know which port should I open on
the firewall ?
Is it going to use the spamd-cfg service ?
b) The synchronisation section mention a key and
Hi Thuban,
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:20:42 +0100 Thuban wrote:
> On the server with the highest priority (lower MX), I must set "-M
> nn.nn.nn.nn" where nn.nn.nn.nn is the IP of a lower priority MX?
Where nn.nn.nn.nn is the public IP of a fake backup MX server,
which *DOES* have an SMTP daemon runnin
Hello,
I ran into the spamd "-M" flag in the manpage, and I'm not sure to understand
it correctly.
On the server with the highest priority (lower MX), I must set "-M nn.nn.nn.nn"
where nn.nn.nn.nn is the IP of a lower priority MX ?
If there is more than one backup MX (low
Ok. Thanks a lot, will try that
On 2019-02-23 00:50, Admin Thorshammare wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> When running spamd in blcklist-mode, does it log it's actions anywhere?
> can't find any info on it, and I'm not even sure it's working.
>
> /Hasse
>
On Feb 22, 2019 5:51 PM, Geir Svalland wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
> When running spamd in blcklist-mode, does it log it's actions anywhere?
> can't find any info on it, and I'm not even sure it's working.
>
> /Hasse
>
Pretty sure it logs to /var/log/da
Hello all.
When running spamd in blcklist-mode, does it log it's actions anywhere?
can't find any info on it, and I'm not even sure it's working.
/Hasse
On 11/4/2018 3:06 PM, Mik J wrote:
Thank you Peter for this opinion.
Misc User, these gmail, live, yahoo spams you're talking about are really
comming from IP addresses that belong to them ? Because on my side it seems
it's not the case.
In my greylist right now I have rosaronald70s...@gmai
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 02:49:44PM -0800, Misc User wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 2:25 PM, Mik J wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > Thank you for this article.
> > Do you know why, and particularly Microsoft, use very random IPs to send
> > mails.
> > In that way, they make greylisting not as reliable as
Thank you Peter for this opinion.
Misc User, these gmail, live, yahoo spams you're talking about are really
comming from IP addresses that belong to them ? Because on my side it seems
it's not the case.
In my greylist right now I have rosaronald70s...@gmail.com but if I check the
IP that orig
On 11/4/2018 2:25 PM, Mik J wrote:
Hello Peter,
Thank you for this article.
Do you know why, and particularly Microsoft, use very random IPs to send mails.
In that way, they make greylisting not as reliable as it should be. We could
all use greylisting if google or microsoft would use the sam
Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
own :)
All the best,
Peter
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
p://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
On 10/30/18 8:46 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 30/10/2018 o 19:31, Peter N. M. Hansteen pisze:
>> yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
>> man pages) is for.
>>
>> To some extent it helps to whitelist IP addresses and networ
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 23:39, Stuart Henderson pisze:
I haven't run spamd myself for years, I got fed up with delayed and
lost mails.
Thanks. That was probably the tipping comment for me - I decided to search
for alternative spam protection.
It's the lost e-mails bing the the thin
On 31.10.2018 17:09, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On 10/30/18 8:05 PM, Mario Theodoridis wrote:
I ran into this problem as well.
I ended up writing a script that parses the SPF entries out of the greylist and
if reasonable, whitelists those ranges and removes the grey
list entries. It runs every 15 m
On 10/30/18 8:05 PM, Mario Theodoridis wrote:
> I ran into this problem as well.
> I ended up writing a script that parses the SPF entries out of the greylist
> and
> if reasonable, whitelists those ranges and removes the grey
> list entries. It runs every 15 minutes.
smtpctl now has an spf walk
On 30.10.2018 20:46, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 19:31, Peter N. M. Hansteen pisze:
yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
man pages) is for.
To some extent it helps to whitelist IP addresses and networks that
domains list in their SPF
* Stuart Henderson le [30-10-2018 23:39:23 +]:
> On 2018-10-30, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm configuring spamd and I noticed that when I send an e-mail from
> > GMail, each time the e-mail is submitted by a different IP address.
> >
>
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:54:43 + Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> Are there any solutions get around this problem? Ideally I'd like
> to just whitelist reputable mail providers ...
Yes Chris, see: http://web.Britvault.Co.UK/products/ungrey-robins/
Cheers,
--
Craig Skinner | http://linkd.in/yGqkv7
On 2018-10-30, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm configuring spamd and I noticed that when I send an e-mail from
> GMail, each time the e-mail is submitted by a different IP address.
>
> Here is spamdb output after sending a test email to myself:
>
> GREY
On 30.10.2018 13:59, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> On 10/30/18 8:46 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote: W dniu 30/10/2018 o 19:31, Peter
> N. M. Hansteen pisze: yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd
> (hinted at in the spamd
> man pages) is for.
>
> To some extent i
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:59:07PM +0100, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> On 10/30/18 8:46 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu 30/10/2018 o??19:31, Peter N. M. Hansteen pisze:
> >> yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
> >> man
On 10/30/18 8:46 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 30/10/2018 o 19:31, Peter N. M. Hansteen pisze:
>> yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
>> man pages) is for.
>>
>> To some extent it helps to whitelist IP addresses and networ
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 19:31, Peter N. M. Hansteen pisze:
yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
man pages) is for.
To some extent it helps to whitelist IP addresses and networks that
domains list in their SPF info.
Yeah, I hoped there are some reputable so
On 10/30/18 7:54 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm configuring spamd and I noticed that when I send an e-mail from
> GMail, each time the e-mail is submitted by a different IP address.
yes, a well-known problem, and it's what nospamd (hinted at in the spamd
man p
Hi,
I'm configuring spamd and I noticed that when I send an e-mail from
GMail, each time the e-mail is submitted by a different IP address.
Here is spamdb output after sending a test email to myself:
GREY|209.85.219.182|mail-yb1-f182.google.com|...
GREY|209.85.219.177|mail-yb1
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 16:58, Chris Narkiewicz pisze:
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 15:56, Ricardo Mestre pisze:
Hi Chris,
You are running spamdb /var/db/spamdb, that's not the way to use it.
I'm sorry, you were right. I misread both your e-mail and man page.
Thank you all for help.
Best regards,
Chris
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 15:53, Solene Rapenne pisze:> do you run spamd-setup(8)?
Yes, I see that it downloads nixspam and loads 20k IPs into spamd.
Best regards,
Chris
W dniu 30/10/2018 o 15:56, Ricardo Mestre pisze:
Hi Chris,
You are running spamdb /var/db/spamdb, that's not the way to use it.
According to man spamdb(8) this is how to list all entries, which I
wanted to do.
I see no entries, so I assume the database is empty.
Best regards,
Chris
On 10/30/18 4:44 PM, Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> Database file has correct perms:
>
> # ls- l /var/db/spamd
> -rw-r--r-- 1 _spamd _spamd 65536 Oct 30 05:30 /var/db/spamd
>
> # spamdb /var/db/spamd
>
I think what you are seeing is that spamdb doesn't expect the data
Hi Chris,
You are running spamdb /var/db/spamdb, that's not the way to use it. The
proper way is to use spamdb key, where key is one of the IP entries you are
getting through spamd. Running just spamdb will show you all entries.
/mestre
On 15:44 Tue 30 Oct , Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
Chris Narkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use spamd to block spam using graylisting, but the spamd
> database is not updated.
>
> I run /usr/libexec/spamd -v -d to see what's happening and I definitely
> see hosts connecting to it:
>
> (GREY)
Hi,
I'm trying to use spamd to block spam using graylisting, but the spamd
database is not updated.
I run /usr/libexec/spamd -v -d to see what's happening and I definitely
see hosts connecting to it:
(GREY) 209.85.219.176: mytestem...@gmail.com> ->
Got Grey HELO mail-yb1
On 10/01/18 23:36, Antonino Sidoti wrote:
> I notice that Spamd when seeing a first time sender is not being labelled
> with “GREY” even though the log says it is.
>
> /var/log/maillog shows a sender being flagged as ‘GREY’;
>
> Oct 1 17:43:24 obsd-svr3 spamd[84545]: (GR
Hi,
I notice that Spamd when seeing a first time sender is not being labelled with
“GREY” even though the log says it is.
/var/log/maillog shows a sender being flagged as ‘GREY’;
Oct 1 17:43:24 obsd-svr3 spamd[84545]: (GREY) 67.219.xxx.250:
->
Oct 1 17:43:24 obsd-svr3 spamd[16
ection without greylisting.
> >
> > .
> >
> > ...
> >
> > This is how my files look like now. spamd.conf is the original one.
>
> Your spamd.conf file was missing a line terminator. Double quotes are
> opened, but not closed. Could this confuse spamd?
k like now. spamd.conf is the original one.
Your spamd.conf file was missing a line terminator. Double quotes are
opened, but not closed. Could this confuse spamd? Fix & restart spamd.
Next, check your syslogs for spamd, spamlogd & spamd-setup activity.
If that doesn't provide the
Thank you for your answer.
I made some adjustments to my pf.conf according to your advice,
and now it's working as I expected.
smtp$ cat spamd
Jun 14 11:30:39 smtp spamd[12751]: 185.234.216.204: disconnected after 12
seconds.
Jun 14 11:30:46 smtp spamd[12751]: 91.121.119.198: connected
s:network) to any nat-to
> (egress:0)
>
> antispoof quick for { egress $ext_if int_if }
>
> block in quick on egress from to any
> block return out quick on egress from any to
>
> block in quick log on egress from to any label "abusers"
>
> block all
> pass
ress $ext_if int_if }
block in quick on egress from to any
block return out quick on egress from any to
block in quick log on egress from to any label "abusers"
block all
pass out quick inet
pass in on egress inet proto tcp from any to any port smtp \
divert-to 127.0.0.1 port s
t;
> ...
> block all
The block rules need to be above the pass rules, otherwise their
matched traffic is blocked. Move all the block rules up above the pass
rules and reload.
> smtp# cat /etc/mail/spamd.conf
>
> ...
> :msg="SPAM. All spmmers get reported
Hello list
I have a problem with spamd. It just don't seem to grey list or block,
or do anything else either. I can receive and send mail as usual.
First I had spamlogd_flags="" in my rc.conf local, but then it immediatly
whitelisted every conection on port 25, even the spammer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 11:30 AM
> From: "Denis Fondras"
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: spamd and IPv6
>
> > does anyone can tell me what the state of spamd and IPv6 is? I would
> > have expected it to work but I can't set for exam
On 18/02/14 11:30, Denis Fondras wrote:
does anyone can tell me what the state of spamd and IPv6 is? I would
have expected it to work but I can't set for exampe ::1 or [::1] as a
listening address (neither alone or together with 127.0.0.1).
Unsupported yet. phessler@ has a diff f
> does anyone can tell me what the state of spamd and IPv6 is? I would
> have expected it to work but I can't set for exampe ::1 or [::1] as a
> listening address (neither alone or together with 127.0.0.1).
>
Unsupported yet. phessler@ has a diff for it.
Hi,
does anyone can tell me what the state of spamd and IPv6 is? I would
have expected it to work but I can't set for exampe ::1 or [::1] as a
listening address (neither alone or together with 127.0.0.1).
Niels
Hi again,
I looked further and notice not the syslogd was the cause but somehow
spamd died while talking to a server. Could something in the body screw
up spamd?
here are my logs on that:
- the spamd log file part
Oct 21 20:24:54 heimdal spamd[46664]: 60.167.119.193: disconnected after
Hi there,
spamd just died silently again tonight. whats the best way to approach
the debugging of this kind of behaviour. As I looked at my logs it seems
that Syslogd causes this because so here is my syslog.conf entry:
!!spamd
daemon.err;daemon.warn;daemon.info;daemon.debug /var/log
Hi there,
it's a quiet simple question :)
I have a rule like this
pass in log(to $log_spamd_if) on $ext_if proto tcp to port smtp rdr-to
127.0.0.1 port spamd
and was wondering if it's better to use
pass in log(to $log_spamd_if) on $ext_if proto tcp to port smtp
divert-to 127.
Op Fri, 06 Oct 2017 10:49:39 +0200 schreef rosjat :
[...]
Is there some way to get a more verbose autput when the process is
daemonized? the -v switch only seems to aplay to the foreground mode.
Depends on your syslog.conf; I have:
!!spamd
daemon.err;daemon.warn;daemon.info;daemon.debug
Hi there,
it seems spamd daemon is siliently and randomly dying on a OpenBSd 6.1
machine. The logs show nothing that would give some hint and If my
script for bgp-spamd wouldn tell me it cant connect to spamd I would
even notice it till the next daily job that tells me that spamlogd
should
Op Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:35:04 +0200 schreef Peter N. M. Hansteen
:
On 09/19/17 09:10, rosjat wrote:
I like to get some opinions on where to use the spamd daemon. Is it
better to do the heavy stuff on the firewall or let it all pass to the
mailsystem and do the filtering there?
OpenBSD&#
On 09/19/17 09:10, rosjat wrote:
> I like to get some opinions on where to use the spamd daemon. Is it
> better to do the heavy stuff on the firewall or let it all pass to the
> mailsystem and do the filtering there?
OpenBSD's spamd is not in any way a 'heavy' service. I
1 - 100 of 1547 matches
Mail list logo
