/var/log/spamd
spamd[11000]: queueing deletion of x.x.x.x mx1.example.com f...@example.com
da...@elven.com.au
spamd[11000]: queueing deletion of y.y.y.y mx2.example.com f...@example.com
da...@elven.com.au
Both of these emails I wished to receive, as I corresponded
with them yesterday. :(
I am
Can messages get dropped if mail servers fail to resend within
time interval, after receiving the initial temporary failure message?
Here are the logs for my failed attempts at joining the
misc mailing list.
All with default spamd settings.
Like I said, it did not succeed until I added lists.openbsd.org
to the /etc/mail/nospamd and reloaded the pf rule.
May 15 23:48:58 mx spamd[6698]: new entry 192.43.244.163 from
On 25.05.2012 01:09, David Diggles wrote:
Can messages get dropped if mail servers fail to resend within
time interval, after receiving the initial temporary failure message?
A qualified yes. The message isn't dropped if the sending server
fails
to resend before greyexp hours, it is dropped
On 25.05.2012 01:09, David Diggles wrote:
Can messages get dropped if mail servers fail to resend within
time interval, after receiving the initial temporary failure message?
It's dropped when it's first received, and it will continue to get
dropped
until passtime minutes have passed. If it
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Diggles da...@elven.com.au wrote:
Can messages get dropped if mail servers fail to resend within
time interval, after receiving the initial temporary failure message?
Yes, but that is entirely up to the sending mailserver.
If you do not receive a
Like I said, it was in default mode when this behavior
started. Now I am messin with the timings trying to
overcome this dropping of messages.
Are you saying I should be increasing this from 25 minutes?
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 02:03:03AM -0500, Matthew Weigel wrote:
On 25.05.2012 01:09, David
Oh, so if I am relying on remote mailservers being configured
to resend after a temporary failure, how do I second guess
the time intervals they are configured with? If they even
resend at all?
Eg: lists.openbsd.org failed with default grey settings in spamd.
I guess I don't have the skills to
Hello,
from all relevant discussions I have seen it seems that BIND in base
will not be updated to a newer version and unbound has a good chance to
be the replacement. The thing is, we need a newer version of BIND for
resolving (at least 9.7, preferably 9.8 or in the future 9.9).
The question
I am now trying it with -G120:6:864
Although I can't think how to reproduce the problem in a controlled way,
other than wait and see what emails I don't get :/
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 02:07:33AM -0500, Matthew Weigel wrote:
On 25.05.2012 01:09, David Diggles wrote:
Can messages get dropped if
* Johan Ryberg jo...@securit.se [2012-05-24 20:38]:
Fishy...
All documentation is pointing at the direction to default advskew on
the primary host and 100 on the secondary.
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/carp.html
fw1: default
fw2: advskew 128
* Kostas Zorbadelos kzo...@otenet.gr [2012-05-25 10:06]:
from all relevant discussions I have seen it seems that BIND in base
will not be updated to a newer version and unbound has a good chance to
be the replacement. The thing is, we need a newer version of BIND for
resolving (at least 9.7,
* David Diggles da...@elven.com.au [2012-05-25 09:18]:
Like I said, it was in default mode when this behavior
started. Now I am messin with the timings trying to
overcome this dropping of messages.
Are you saying I should be increasing this from 25 minutes?
the defaults are fine, afaict
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:22:04 +1000
David Diggles wrote:
Eg: lists.openbsd.org failed with default grey settings in spamd.
I find it hard to believe lists.openbsd.org isn't RFC compliant. I
guess you have another problem.
If you send me an address privately. I'll send a mail from Yahoo. I
know
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de writes:
* Kostas Zorbadelos kzo...@otenet.gr [2012-05-25 10:06]:
from all relevant discussions I have seen it seems that BIND in base
will not be updated to a newer version and unbound has a good chance to
be the replacement. The thing is, we need a newer
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Fren: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] Fvr David
Diggles
Skickat: den 25 maj 2012 11:14
Till: misc@openbsd.org
Dmne: Re: spamd greylisting: false positives
I am now trying it with -G120:6:864
Although I can't think how to reproduce the
Dragi obo avatelji Bola i Braha,
PROVEDITE 7 DANA NA BOLU U APARTMANU
ZA SAMO 1.321 kn
Od 1.5. do 23.6.
Od 26.8. do 31.10.
Broj aran mana je ogranihen.
Ukoliko vas je vie od dvoje u apartmanu, sljedefe dvije osobe plafaju cijenu
za jednu.
Otkrijte Bol - u ivajte na najljepoj pla i
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Fren: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] Fvr David
Diggles
Skickat: den 25 maj 2012 11:14
Till: misc@openbsd.org
Dmne: Re: spamd greylisting: false positives
I am now trying it with -G120:6:864
Although I can't think how to reproduce the
Hi,
we will be deactivating some old servers. I will try to boot OpenBSD
and provide dmesg.
|Product NameIBM
x3850-[88634SG]-
|Product NameIBM 3850 M2
/ x3950 M2 -[71414RG]-
Anybody
car + eimer? ay carambas?!!
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Stuart VanZee stua...@datalinesys.com wrote:
What do you guys think about the reliability of the news
(unfortunatelly in German only) on www.golem.de
My German's rusty but the follow-up article quoting Symantec mentions
Le 12-05-25 06:24, Kostas Zorbadelos a icrit :
Henning Brauerlists-open...@bsws.de writes:
* Kostas Zorbadeloskzo...@otenet.gr [2012-05-25 10:06]:
from all relevant discussions I have seen it seems that BIND in base
will not be updated to a newer version and unbound has a good chance to
be
The spamd pf.conf rules I have are:
table spamd-white persist
table nospamd persist file /etc/mail/nospamd
pass in on egress proto tcp from any to any port smtp \
rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd
pass in on egress proto tcp from nospamd to any port smtp
pass in log on egress proto tcp from
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 07:27:48AM -0400, Jiri B wrote:
Hi,
we will be deactivating some old servers. I will try to boot OpenBSD
and provide dmesg.
|Product NameIBM
x3850-[88634SG]-
|Product
car + eimer? ay carambas?!!
Autoeimer, with unlimited strcat() known to overflow students' brains.
Yes the Bundestrojaner. I pictured a fat politician's soggy condom on the
back of his doggy-style mistress: one for the country! Mild stuff considering
German pr0n culture.
-- p
On Thu, May 24,
David Diggles wrote:
I am now trying it with -G120:6:864
Although I can't think how to reproduce the problem in a controlled way,
other than wait and see what emails I don't get :/
Stop playing with those settings, you are freaking out about log entries
that don't mean what you think they
The way you use that === in your graphic, even with the
explanatory comment, is hella confusing. I think I got what you mean:
That's where it goes, but it goes there via the carp geodes, not via
any direct connection. But even if I did now understand that correctly
(which I'm not entirely sure
I wasn't receiving email, from lists.openbsd.org and also from my
work email address, until I added the respective smtp servers to
the whitelist table in pf.
I could see them in the greylist when I typed spamdb.
Yes. I did misunderstand the spamd log entry about deletion.
Though I would not
Oh it just means the standalone geode redirects all inbound connections
from the internet, to the Pentium 4.
The other pair of carp geodes protect the office subnet, and the Pentium 4
does not have ip forwarding, but acts as a squid cache etc.
Any suggestions for improvement? Is there a
On 25.05.2012 10:50, David Diggles wrote:
I wasn't receiving email, from lists.openbsd.org and also from my
work email address, until I added the respective smtp servers to
the whitelist table in pf.
I could see them in the greylist when I typed spamdb.
In the greylist, or in the whitelist
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 01:50:40AM +1000, David Diggles wrote:
I will go ahead and flush the spamdb database, and the pf tables
and start over with default everything, no whitelist pf entries.
spamd acts up for me occasionally. In such cases I just
/etc/rc.d/spamd stop
rm /var/db/spamd
On 05/22/2012 08:50 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2012-05-21, Geoff Steckelg...@oat.com wrote:
On 05/20/2012 10:49 PM, Nick Holland wrote:
On 05/20/12 17:49, David Diggles wrote:
Ok, I am interested in opinions on why one should migrate from BIND to unbound?
1) It is unlikely there will be
Geoff Steckel(g...@oat.com) on 2012.05.25 14:37:29 -0400:
Thanks very much! I think using NSD for the outward facing authoritative
service makes sense. Retaining BIND is probably best for the internal
service
since I see no way to add the local domains, etc. to unbound/nsd while
retaining
On 05/25/2012 09:00 PM, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
1. run nsd on 127.0.0.1 (or some other ip != your unbound ip)
2. tell unbound where to ask for your local domain example.com:
stub-zone:
name: example.com
stub-addr: 127.0.0.1
If you run nsd on localhost, remember to set
Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca writes:
Le 12-05-25 06:24, Kostas Zorbadelos a icrit :
Henning Brauerlists-open...@bsws.de writes:
* Kostas Zorbadeloskzo...@otenet.gr [2012-05-25 10:06]:
from all relevant discussions I have seen it seems that BIND in base
will not be updated
On 2012-05-25 15:14, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
filter--on-v4 (9.7+) (needed now)
purely out of curiosity: why?
Crude workaround for increased levels of IPv6 brokeness in our networks
(aka CPE with broken firmware). Needed until the proper solution is
given.
Interesting, thanks.
In any
!Muy Importante!
Si no puede visualizar correctamente este correo, le pedimos que lo arrastre a
su Bandeja de Entrada
Apreciable Ejecutivo:
TIEM de Mixico
Empresa Lmder en Capacitacisn y Actualizacisn de Capital Humano
Le Recuerda que el excelente curso denominado:
Mercadotecnia Moderna de las
Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca writes:
Unbound is replacing BIND in OpenBSD for increased betterness. Stay tuned...
Yes, I have understood that. The question remains: what do you think of
ports for recent BIND versions?
I am trying to make a case for OpenBSD in a demanding
On 2012-05-25 15:33, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
Yes, I have understood that. The question remains: what do you think of
ports for recent BIND versions?
I am running a hand-compiled BIND 9.9 right now for the DNS64 feature.
I'd like to have an up to date port. I don't one to contribute, so I
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:14:54PM -0500, Nicolai wrote:
Hi all,
While making a self-signed key for use with Apache I noticed that the
FAQ recommends deprecated crypto (RSA-1024 and SHA1). I chose instead
RSA-4096 and sha256. A couple patches for the website and manual page
are below.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Geoff Steckel g...@oat.com wrote:
Thanks very much! I think using NSD for the outward facing authoritative
service makes sense. Retaining BIND is probably best for the internal
service
since I see no way to add the local domains, etc. to unbound/nsd while
Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
While making a self-signed key for use with Apache I noticed that the
FAQ recommends deprecated crypto (RSA-1024 and SHA1). I chose instead
RSA-4096 and sha256. A couple patches for the website and manual page
are below.
changes committed,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:25:29PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
While making a self-signed key for use with Apache I noticed that the
FAQ recommends deprecated crypto (RSA-1024 and SHA1). I chose instead
RSA-4096 and sha256. A couple
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:49:26PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:25:29PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
RSA-4096 is really excessive. RSA-2048 is the general recommendation
and what we use by default for SSH and IKE host keys.
i wish you'd commented earlier
Peter Laufenberg open...@laufenberg.ch wrote:
My German's rusty but the follow-up article quoting Symantec mentions
spyware/keylogging, which has been the traditional technique used in
in the past.
But that's for targeted surveillance. The original article refers
to a bulk grep of 16,400
Thanks for also replying directly. Since I cleared nospamd
override table in pf, I am no longer receiving emails from misc.
I wasn't receiving email, from lists.openbsd.org and also from my
work email address, until I added the respective smtp servers to
the whitelist table in pf.
I could
Ok I am still not getting emails from
lists.openbsd.org (so please if you reply, cc to me).
I restarted spamd at this time after deleting /var/db/spamd and
clearing the bypass tables in pf at this time:
2012-05-26 02:13:12 # /usr/libexec/spamd
Here is the last message to make it to
Have anyone seen this? I just saw it, and even though there's only
windows app available right now, I'm hoping this can tickle some
developer's fancy :)
http://www.mini-box.com/OpenUPS
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
This officer's men seem to
47 matches
Mail list logo
