Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day.
It is not a criticism it
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to
On 2011-03-12 10:58:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
No, it's not a bug. As you know maildir storage format stores one email
_per file_. virtual_mailbox_limit is a _per file_ size restriction.
With maildir storage it will prevent individual emails (individual
files) greater than (default:
Le 13/03/2011 09:57, Frank Bonnet a écrit :
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:57:20 +0100
Von: Frank Bonnet f.bon...@esiee.fr
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: The future of SMTP ?
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the inbound.
but not only with postfix and without taking money in the hand
do not tell us only with strict smtp you get 99% spam away
I really don't understand why people keep telling that
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:42:55 +0100
Von: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/13/2011 4:24 AM:
On 2011-03-12 10:58:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
No, it's not a bug. As you know maildir storage format stores one email
_per file_. virtual_mailbox_limit is a _per file_ size restriction.
With maildir storage it will prevent individual
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:24PM +0100, Steve wrote:
The spamming problem is not something that you can fix by
replacing SMTP with something new.
An appropriate illustration is the initiative taken recently by
Germany's government to create a secure e-mail environment. It
does not replace
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:58:50 +0100
Von: Lorens Kockum postfix-users-4...@tagged.lorens.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:24PM +0100, Steve wrote:
The spamming problem is not something
Zitat von Frank Bonnet f.bon...@esiee.fr:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to
Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the
inbound.
but not only with postfix
No. Not only with postfix alone. But most of us are not only using postfix in
their messaging
* Larry Vaden va...@texoma.net:
Hello postfix-users,
For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
log entries are summarized as:
By which tool?
1744 DNSBL rank 2
12458 DNSBL rank 3
5113 DNSBL rank 4
1099 DNSBL rank 5
1 DNSBL rank 7
Q1: Given
Hi everyone.
I'm sending this email because I'm looking for a reference regarding smtp
attacks, this is because I'm working to create some smtp signatures for the
snort solution.
It's not directly with snort, I'm willing to contribute with the bleeding snort
proyect.
I can't find any
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
* Larry Vaden va...@texoma.net:
Hello postfix-users,
For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
log entries are summarized as:
By which tool?
Hi Ralf,
Sorry about the subject
Larry Vaden:
Hello postfix-users,
For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
log entries are summarized as:
1744 DNSBL rank 2
12458 DNSBL rank 3
5113 DNSBL rank 4
1099 DNSBL rank 5
1 DNSBL rank 7
Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
Yes it is and it gets better every release.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's
* Larry Vaden va...@texoma.net:
Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
Please find the corresponding log line, so we can check this.
This is the one on which this query was filed:
[root@mx4 ~]# zcat /var/log/maillog.1.gz |
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
This is not a problem of SMTP but from the idea to design a system
where everyone is able to send a message to some other participant if
the address is known. So you don't have to reinvent SMTP but to
ditch the idea of free electronic communication.
+1.
Now, let's
Ralf Hildebrandt:
$ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
2*2 = 7?
Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
that this does not happen.
Wietse
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:56:31 +0100
Von: Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Ralf Hildebrandt:
$ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
2*2 = 7?
Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
that
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
I would like to thank the author of postscreen --- who was that?
Wietse?
As always, THANKS Weitse!
--
Larry Vaden, CoFounder
Internet Texoma, Inc.
Serving Rural Texomaland Since 1995
We Care About Your
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
Uncorrected multi-bit memory error?
The boxen are Compaq DL380s with ECC; I'll leave it to you to discern
their
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Ralf Hildebrandt:
$ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
2*2 = 7?
Surely you have enough logs of your own that you can verify
that
Larry Vaden:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Q1: Given the postscreen invocation in main.cf below the sig, what is
the meaning of DNSBL rank 7?
Uncorrected multi-bit memory error?
The boxen are Compaq DL380s with ECC; I'll leave it to you
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Larry Vaden va...@texoma.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt:
$ host 197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
197.251.232.190.zen.spamhaus.org
Larry Vaden:
Weitse,
That is not my name.
Please let me try to advance the request to make certain other tests
available as an option in postscreen; namely, note the helo above;
unless I have watched too much Dennis Miller and am wrong about this,
we could have rejected said based on the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Larry Vaden:
Weitse,
That is not my name.
Dr. Venema, my most sincere apologies.
OMG, my son is correct, 9 stents and a pacemaker later, I should avoid
public discourse.
Please let me try to advance the request to
Wietse:
Postscreen does HELO processing after it has completed the DBSNL
and pregreet tests.
Larry Vaden:
Request withdrawn, but may I ask why so we can close this thread?
This is news to me (see proviso above, I probably read it and just
don't remember it). Is the HELO test enabled by
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:35:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Larry Vaden:
Hello postfix-users,
For a selected time period today, the postfix/postscreen DNSBL rank
log entries are summarized as:
1744 DNSBL rank 2
12458 DNSBL rank 3
5113 DNSBL rank 4
1099 DNSBL rank
make upgrade on a running Postfix
system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
and dnsblog(8) has changed.
Wietse
20110313
Bugfix (introduced Postfix 2.8): number the postscreen DNSBL
requests, so that delayed results for an old session
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/13/2011 1:47 PM:
Larry Vaden:
Weitse,
That is not my name.
Unfortunately in the US we all had the following English spelling rule
hard wired into our synapses somewhere between the 1st and 4th grade:
I before E except after C
Some of us are able to overcome
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/13/2011 3:08 PM:
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/13/2011 1:47 PM:
Larry Vaden:
Weitse,
That is not my name.
Unfortunately in the US we all had the following English spelling rule
hard wired into our synapses somewhere between the 1st and 4th grade:
I before E
On 2011-03-13 07:52:11 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
If you use virtual_mailbox_limit with strictly maildir mailboxes, you
may as well set message_size_limit=0 and leave it alone, so you only
have one setting to keep track of.
Is 0 accepted for this option? http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
postfix reload after make upgrade on a running Postfix
system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
and dnsblog(8) has changed.
Also fixed with postfix-2.9-20110313.
Wietse
.
This error was rare enough that it should not affect real email.
Use postfix reload after make upgrade on a running Postfix
system. This is needed because the protocol between postscreen(8)
and dnsblog(8) has changed.
Also fixed with postfix-2.9-20110313.
Wietse
THANKS/ldv
Le 13/03/2011 16:56, Erwan David a écrit :
Le Sun 13/03/2011, Steve disait
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
And today it is not big deal to cut down spam to less then 1% of the
inbound.
but not only with postfix
No. Not only with postfix alone. But most of us are not only using
Le 13/03/2011 16:52, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de a écrit :
Zitat von Frank Bonnet f.bon...@esiee.fr:
Hello
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic ...
Postfix is really a great piece of software
and we all thanks to Wiese for his tremendous work.
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems
Le 13/03/2011 17:57, Alfonso Alejandro Reyes Jimenez a écrit :
Hi everyone.
I'm sending this email because I'm looking for a reference regarding smtp
attacks, this is because I'm working to create some smtp signatures for the
snort solution.
It's not directly with snort, I'm willing to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Frank Bonnet wrote:
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day.
It is not a criticism it is a fact that jump
to every sysadmin's face.
Does anyone has knowing of the future of SMTP ?
Is
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.03.2011 12:38, schrieb Steve:
I really don't understand why people keep telling that spam is a problem?
because there are peopole out their whose time costs money?
This prt of the problem I suspect is marginal. It's not the cost, it's
42 matches
Mail list logo
