On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:50:23PM +0200, ratatouille wrote:
> Henrik K schrieb am 02.10.19 um 15:46:18 Uhr:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:20:48PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >
> > > I got rid of it, since of too many false positives related to o
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:20:48PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> I got rid of it, since of too many false positives related to outlook, gmail
> etc.
Why would you greylist something that's easily skipped using DNSWL etc?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:03:09AM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> With that, the position of the header should be less critical.
Thanks for the info, I'll tune forthcoming AuthRes parser for SpamAssassin
with this in mind.
Also found out that amavisd-milter naively inserts it's synthetic
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 01:16:08PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> Compiled new opendmarc that inserts to index 0 and it ends up correctly
> above postfix's header. I guess many people have this problem without
> realizing it. Sigh, yet more custom patched packages to run..
FYI th
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:23:53PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> I have milter chain opendkim->opendmarc->amavisd-milter for incoming
> external mail. Postfix 3.1.0 from Ubuntu 16.04.5.
>
> As I understand, the correct positioning of milter inserted internal headers
> woul
I have milter chain opendkim->opendmarc->amavisd-milter for incoming
external mail. Postfix 3.1.0 from Ubuntu 16.04.5.
As I understand, the correct positioning of milter inserted internal headers
would be above postfix's own. But it seems all Authentication-Results are
added below it, so
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Miha Valencic skrev den 17-12-2012 14:40:
Is it possible to add-up scores from different RBL's and reject the
incoming message after a certain threshold?
sounds like policyd-weight
For instance, we have a number of RBLs
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:47:20AM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 04.09.2012 08:37, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 03.09.2012 20:36, schrieb Eddy Ilg:
Dear Postfix List,
I'd like to continously update whitelist for spamassassin of recipients
that my sasl users have sent mail to
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 12:09, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 12:38, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you act with us as example?
you are sending a message to me to MX barracuda.thelounge.net
well, you whitelist
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:54:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
the hard facts are that EVERY site using a dedicated
spamfilter (own appliance or external service) have
different IP's for MX and outgoing mail
So? Postpals also looks at whole /24 subnets and also can compare
sender/recipient
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it easy on them!
It's fine to imagine many
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:29:23PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are sending to the MX
you are whitelisting the MX
wonderful, the MX is mistly not the outgoing server
you are receiving a spam-message
your user has a autoreply
with bad luck you are whitelisting the spamming server
So a
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 14:00, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 04:44:49PM -0400, Patrick Domack wrote:
Why bother whitelisting any ip address? I have my system flag the
outgoing and incoming email address.
Am I defensive or stupid for wondering what's the point of your question?
Surely people whitelist all kinds of things with
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:13:55PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:33:31AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
Still, is it too much to ask for looking at
things from many angles or backing up claims with any kind of
statistics or science instead of personal gut feelings?
Where
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:34:50PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
Sendmail::Pmilter is recent, but lacks a maintainer. No traffic on
its mailing list since 2009.
Well it worked fine for small scale stuff I used. And I've seen others use
it. There's still three maintainers assigned, last
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:46:26PM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Hell no, amavisd can kill your system dead.
It will take 100MB per process easily, and each of these takes much
Terrible misinformation. Amavisd-new preloads pretty much everything before
forking, which means childs just share
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191]: NOQUEUE:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:07:28AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/6/2011 8:45 AM, Duane Hill wrote:
Yes, this should be added to the top of the file, except the
v6 bypass expression needs to be improved.
I would assume that no one else is using this with ipv6 since
the offending rule
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:16:38PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/15/2011 9:09 AM:
Exactly what are you asking here? Are you trying to limit what emails
come into your system via the internet, or limiting how much data is
written to user mail storage?
I'd
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:01:19AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/5/2010 1:39 AM:
On 11/05/10 00:11, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/4/2010 8:06 PM:
On 11/04/2010 12:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ned Slider put forth on 11/3/2010 6:33 PM:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:11:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Henrik K put forth on 11/5/2010 2:49 AM:
Did you happen to notice the absolutely generic expressions in the SA file,
unlike your file which mostly lists specific domains?
The bulk of them are specific to a given ISP. I saw
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 08:45:56AM +0200, Patric Falinder wrote:
I just set up Postgrey yesterday and it works just fine.
One thing that got me thinking though was that if I have greylisting
check Before reject_rbl_client, shouldn't the rbl check be skipped
if the IP get's greylisted and Then
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:12:01PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Snowshoe spam will most probably pass greylisting too. Better not
clutter greylisting database with useless things. Have the blacklists
block'em instead.
I don't follow your logic here. Yes, most snowshoe is sent from real
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:49:40AM +0200, Michal Bruncko wrote:
Hello
Thank you for pointing me. It was just my quick idea but as you
wrote, perhaps many spammers have valid spf records and thus, my
spam checking will be less spam resistant.
I have no problem not GREYLISTING things that
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:02:52PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:48 +0200
Von: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
* Josh Cason
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Steve wrote:
If you looking for something that is beyond just being better then I
recommend CRM114 or DSPAM or OSBF-Lua. If you insist in having the AV
included in the Anti-Spam tool then use something like DSPAM.
I'd consider those as
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more effective in the
long run and makes more efficient use of network and server resources.
You
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:40:24AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
Beyond the FP risk, there is a more subtle issue of whether the
benefit of rejecting spam cheaply is worth the potential cost of not
having a steady stream of representative spam feeding the adaptive
dynamic features of a scoring
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:22:08PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
It looks as if moving my RBLs to postscreen means they're no longer
needed in my *_restrictions - is there a scenario where this would
not be the case ?
If you want to whitelist by other means than IP.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:13:31AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Louis-David Mitterrand:
Hi,
I am using an (insanely) long pcre (see below) to reject
african/chinese/etc. spam that relays through large ISP's. An now it
seems I have reached a limit. When trying to add a single more
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:19PM +0200, Steve wrote:
You if/endif suggestion for the prefix is interesting.
For added safety, the individual rules should be anchored with ^ and the
bracketed atom plussed, no?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:13:15PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:00:36 +0300
Von: Henrik K h...@hege.li
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 06:23:32PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Voytek Eymont put forth on 3/20/2010 5:52 PM:
one of the blacklist I use it is ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
to my knowledge, it has been OK since I've set it up, with no known
complaints
what is the user's opinions on it's
Hello,
There was a thread earlier about whitelisting known correspondents.
I have now written a tool for my pleasure, but feel free to check it out.
http://mailfud.org/postpals/
Cheers,
Henrik
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:05:01PM +, Jaroslaw Grzabel wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Use an access(5) map on the client:
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/nice_reject
with:
unknown 550 5.1.2 Your reverse DNS entries are off
Thank you for that Ralf. Do you know
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to accomplish this
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:54PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:53:51AM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Sep-2009, at 05:28, Laurence Moughan wrote:
postmap -q boarding regexp:/etc/postfix/headerchecks
This comes back with nothing - i thought it might coma back with a
match ?
/^From:(.*)boarding_...@domain\.com/ REJECT junk
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 03:38:35PM -0400, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
I thought it would be there since I have db 4.7 installed in the
machine. Am I missing something here or just being mistaken as usual? Is
it being called something else?
PS. Consider using simple and fast
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:27:50AM +0200, mouss wrote:
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:00:09AM +0200, mouss wrote:
Louis-David Mitterrand a ?crit :
Hi,
A lot of spam comes from certain ip ranges (e.g. west africa) through
relays (large ISPs) that would be too
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:14:29PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
2009/6/25 Louis-David Mitterrand vindex+lists-postfix-us...@apartia.org:
/^((Received|X-Originating-IP):.+\b(124\.120\.1\.(IP RANGE IN
REGEX)\b/
in pcre:/etc/postfix/header_access. But converting IP ranges to regex'es
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Steve wrote:
I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one and
Thanks for the laugh. I wonder what you call not having a local caching
nameserver then? You do
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:09:58AM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
It's a shame, because enforcing these checks would have a noticeable
impact on spam, especially FCrDNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Confirmed_reverse_DNS
Sadly, I have been unable to uncover a method to use FCrDNS in
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:51:42AM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
Hello,
I was looking for a way to do selective milter. Meaning if a specific
host connects I send it trough the milter.
I couldn't find it however. Is it possible?
Maybe try milter manager, supposedly you can have flexible
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:33:12PM +0530, Ramprasad wrote:
My logfiles are approx 1.5 GB each, if we rotate twice a day
grep sender.*recipient $logfile is really much much faster than grep
-i sender.*recipient $logfile
IMHO grep would not count as lousy code ( on linux )
And are you sure
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 04:51:04PM +0530, ram wrote:
Can all the logs be made in lowercase only atleast the sender and the
recipient emailids
Since we have huge logs, searching for something in the logs is quite
expensive. And doing it case insensitive really sucks the resources
If postfix
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:13:57PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
If you want to investigate setting up amavisd-new as a pre-queue filter,
general instructions are here:
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html
More specific instructions can likely be found in the archives of the
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:15:43AM -0600, Ville Walveranta wrote:
Couple of messages earlier in this thread I posted the following pcre
smtpd_recipient_access table:
# reject domains that are served by Katharion
# on the generic smtpd interface
/(@virtualdomain1\.com|
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:43AM +0100, mouss wrote:
# Client name, not an IPv4/IPv6 address:
/[^\d.:]/ DUNNO
Viktor probably meant
/[^\d\.:]/ DUNNO
No need to escape things in character classes.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:34:28PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Terry Carmen wrote:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address. /client.*\..*\..*/i 450
AUTO_CLIENT Email Rejected. You appear to be
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:24:07PM +0200, Diego Liziero wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Henrik K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Terry Carmen wrote:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address. /client
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Matthias Haegele wrote:
I think this is rather a bad idea. I would prefer to treat them on their
behaviour
(use helo checks, check for reverse dns ..., you should find several
examples in this thread, from mouss ...) .
What would prevent a spammer
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:34:28PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Terry Carmen wrote:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear
to be connecting from a Dynamic IP
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:05:02PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
Sorry but developing stupid regexpes anywhere is not appropriate, especially
when it can be done right. But hey, you are free to block /.*/ if you want,
who am I to judge. It certainly blocks spam!
Regexp to
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Dan Horne wrote:
- I wouldn't set up a global greylist filter, because all my receiving
mail
is going to be delayed (I guess my users don't like this ;-))
...
- I wouldn't set up a global REJECT based on RBL...
- *BUT* I would combine any of the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:59:07AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
P.s. Even though policyd-weight may be old, I've heard good things about
it. We have a customer that uses it and swears by it.
It's fine, but doesn't have much that postfwd can't do. Postfwd has active
development and somewhat more
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:20:03AM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I personally think greylisting wastes a lot of time for little return.
policyd-weight + amavisd-new (with clamav) are much more definitive
answers (kills 98% of spam here).
Pardon me, but no software or method is good
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:32:56PM -0400, Rick Zeman wrote:
Just discovered that gmail is now retrying greylisted email from not
only multiple servers, but from multiple servers located within
different subnets...which totally breaks breaks tumgreyspf greylisting
implementation. I kind of
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever catch
spam on your server? it never caught anything here.
I don't use it
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:32PM +1000, James Robertson wrote:
Recently we noticed an increase in junk and discovered that it's coming
from Hotmail (and to a lesser extent Yahoo).
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.144 required=5.31 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599,
...
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.728
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:16:59PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
That really didn't answer my question. I guess I need to be more specific:
Is the CIDR file a plain text flat file? Do I need to run any commands
against it to do the binary conversions or is that something Postfix
does
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 04:59:48AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
And if you mention man pages I'll kick you in the teeth Henrik. No
one would ever write a how-two if man pages were the holy grail of
implementation. And I don't have the time to sift through man pages
trying to find why
64 matches
Mail list logo
