Rich Wales:
> Is there -- or should there be -- a configuration parameter to tell the
> postscreen server to reject new(ish) clients for a specified minimum
> period of time before stepping out of the way and allowing them to pass?
> At the moment, it seems to me that requiring a minimum of 5
On 25/06/19 5:12 AM, Rich Wales wrote:
However, a handful of spam messages are still getting through. It seems
some spam-sending engines are getting smarter and are retrying almost
immediately after an initial rejection -- before Spamhaus has had a
chance to list them -- and since they already
I've enabled the post-220 postscreen tests now on my server, and this is
making a significant difference -- most spam from random garbage domains
is never returning anymore after the initial soft rejection.
However, a handful of spam messages are still getting through. It seems
some spam-sending
On 24/06/19 5:21 AM, A. Schulze wrote:
while running postscreen and postgrey I still see some connections deferred by
postgrey...
no more details available on a sunday.
If you're running the after-220 tests in postscreen then these messages
are actually deferring twice, and the fact that
On 22/06/19 12:49 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
I'm running Postfix 3.1.0 on an Ubuntu 16.04 LTS system.
II'm using Postfix's postscreen filtering, including zen.spamhaus.org
(with a large score) as one of my DNSBL sites, but it's not helping in
some cases because the spam sources are not showing up on
I'm using conditional greylisting with policy-weightd and postgrey.
And another conditional greylisting if the spamassassin score is too high
using milter-greylist.
This doesn't introduce delays for most of the incoming mails but penalizes
zombies / mailservers with strange behaviours :)
-
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> >Am 22.06.19 um 02:49 schrieb Rich Wales:
> >> Any other suggestions?
>
> On 22.06.19 14:43, A. Schulze wrote:
> >I'm still using greylisting with moderate effects. It catches some percent
> >other AntiSpam technics doesn't
>
> even compared to postscreen?
I would
Am 23.06.19 um 16:57 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> On 22.06.19 14:43, A. Schulze wrote:
>> I'm still using greylisting with moderate effects. It catches some percent
>> other AntiSpam technics doesn't
>
> even compared to postscreen?
yes
while running postscreen and postgrey I still see
Am 22.06.19 um 02:49 schrieb Rich Wales:
Any other suggestions?
On 22.06.19 14:43, A. Schulze wrote:
I'm still using greylisting with moderate effects. It catches some percent
other AntiSpam technics doesn't
even compared to postscreen?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;
Am 22.06.19 um 02:49 schrieb Rich Wales:
> Any other suggestions?
I'm still using greylisting with moderate effects. It catches some percent
other AntiSpam technics doesn't
Andreas
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 07:33 Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * Rich Wales:
>
> > I'm wondering if it may be worthwhile for me to enable greylisting in
> > some form on my server.
>
> While postscreen is no silver bullet, it does a fine job for me. I'd
> rather see some spammers connect (doesn't mean
* Rich Wales:
> I'm wondering if it may be worthwhile for me to enable greylisting in
> some form on my server.
While postscreen is no silver bullet, it does a fine job for me. I'd
rather see some spammers connect (doesn't mean their postings go
through) than risk blocking inbound "confirmation
I have not used greylisting in 5+ years, not even fake greylisting
with address_verify_poll_count or postscreen_whitelist_interfaces,
Wietse
I'm running Postfix 3.1.0 on an Ubuntu 16.04 LTS system.
II'm using Postfix's postscreen filtering, including zen.spamhaus.org
(with a large score) as one of my DNSBL sites, but it's not helping in
some cases because the spam sources are not showing up on Spamhaus at
the time I get e-mail from
14 matches
Mail list logo
