On 10/27/2015 05:09 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Octavio Alvarez
> wrote:
On 26/10/15 11:38, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
But it is originating all from different IP addresses. Who knows if this
is
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2015 05:09 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Octavio Alvarez
>> > wrote:
>>
>> On 26/10/15 11:38, Jürgen Jaritsch
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:09:00AM -0400, Ian Smith wrote:
> This is the part that's been bugging me. Doesn't the NANOG server
> implement SPF checking on inbound list mail?
Don't know, but it doesn't matter: SPF has zero anti-spam value.
(I know. I've studied this in ridiculous detail using a
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
> On 26/10/15 11:38, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
>
>
But it is originating all from different IP addresses. Who knows if this
> is an attack to get *@jdlabs.fr blocked from NANOG and is just getting
> its goal
Rich Kulawiec writes:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:09:00AM -0400, Ian Smith wrote:
> > This is the part that's been bugging me. Doesn't the NANOG server
> > implement SPF checking on inbound list mail?
>
> Don't know, but it doesn't matter: SPF has zero anti-spam value.
> (I
The trouble is that this is not the NAMSOG (North American Mail Server
Operators Group). ;)
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
> Wouldn't that be interesting -- you can't join NANOG unless your email
> domain publishes an SPF record with a -all rule.
>
>
In article you write:
>Wouldn't that be interesting -- you can't join NANOG unless your email
>domain publishes an SPF record with a -all rule.
>
>That would raise the bar AND prevent the kind of thing that happened this
>weekend.
That's OK.
Wouldn't that be interesting -- you can't join NANOG unless your email
domain publishes an SPF record with a -all rule.
That would raise the bar AND prevent the kind of thing that happened this
weekend.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
... and thus a suitable topic for NANOG, I
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:59:29 -0400, Peter Beckman said:
> Wouldn't that be interesting -- you can't join NANOG unless your email
> domain publishes an SPF record with a -all rule.
>
> That would raise the bar AND prevent the kind of thing that happened this
> weekend.
And make a number of
The spam is real.
You can tune your own spamassassin-installation by adding these lines to
local.cf:
#Custom Rule for SPAMCOP
header SUBJECT_FW_NEWMESSAGE Subject =~ /(Fw: new message)/
describe SUBJECT_FW_NEWMESSAGE subject fw new message
score SUBJECT_FW_NEWMESSAGE 10.0
I caught hundreds
Hi,
I added this two lines to our postfix header checks:
/mike@sentex\.net/ DISCARD
/jdenoy@jdlabs\.fr/ DISCARD
Worked very well:
# grep -i discard /var/log/mail.log | grep -iE "@jdlabs|@sentex" | wc -l
408
Best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & Infrastructure
ANEXIA
On 26/10/15 11:38, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added this two lines to our postfix header checks:
>
> /mike@sentex\.net/ DISCARD
> /jdenoy@jdlabs\.fr/ DISCARD
>
> Worked very well:
>
> # grep -i discard /var/log/mail.log | grep -iE "@jdlabs|@sentex" | wc -l
> 408
But it is originating
12 matches
Mail list logo