For now almost a week without sorbs and wothout spam.
Remebered that the metter I was installed sorbs list was many forged
freemail spams. That time I've done client/hello/sender match check for
a list of free mail services (discussed on this list). And I was also
advised to add sorbs, b/c all
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 07:52 -0400, John Peach wrote:
Right, so, how is THAT a false positive, it is a justifiable listing
if they became part of the problem.
I never said it was a false positive. Just that it's a waste of time
trying to get delisted; we gave up with that years ago.
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 09:40 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
.
This illustrates what you get when blocking all mail from an ISP
just because some customer sent some email that hit some spamtrap.
We do it here, I've done it for 5 years or so, little problems at all
given the
Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
rest is missing:
.
Oct 28 11:30:50 darkstar postfix/smtpd[17528]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from camomile.cloud9.net[168.100.1.3]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
Client host [168.1
00.1.3] blocked using spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net;
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
rest is missing:
LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
camomile.cloud9.net? or do these servers host other stuff as well
.
Oct
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 10/27/2010 7:20 AM:
Can somebody comment on this please.
В Вто, 26/10/2010 в 18:20 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
I'm now trying to move all RBL and RHSBL checks to policyd-weight. In
policyd-weight I set $ADD_X_HEADER = 1 and very high score so it
В Чтв, 28/10/2010 в 19:59 +1000, Noel Butler пишет:
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
rest is missing:
LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
camomile.cloud9.net? or do
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years
and are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist
for them.
That is complete FUD, yes, I know what their website says, but knowing
the
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000 Noel Butler noel.butler at
ausics.net wrote: On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко
Костик wrote: sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get
blocked for several years and are not
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 14:13 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
I have an automated script that runs over all of our mail servers log
files daily searching for IP's that send to
known spamtrap addresses and also on my private server (this domain),
addresses that never existed, and can't
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:28:42 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:52:27 -0400
John Peach post...@johnpeach.com articulated:
I never said it was a false positive. Just that it's a waste of time
trying to get delisted; we gave up with that years ago.
If you mean years agoliterally, then I might suggest that you revisit
it. The Times They
Noel Butler:
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, ??? ?? wrote:
Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
rest is missing:
LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
camomile.cloud9.net? or do these servers host other stuff as well
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:11:59PM +0300, ??? ?? wrote:
I have the following postfix configuration:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
snip
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
In all this thread, no one that I have seen has yet mentioned that
DSBL has been defunct since 2008, over
Le 26/10/2010 13:11, Покотиленко Костик a écrit :
[snip]
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them.
- hmmm. if you refer to the delisting fee, this has changed. there's no
fee anymore.
- if
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 10/28/2010 5:31 AM:
a. mail was send directly from company's public ip which is DSL (shouldn't
send direct)
b. advertising company's mail server doesn't have revers DNS
c. doesn't send proper hello
d. advertising company's ip black listed by sorbs
Ahh, I
Can somebody comment on this please.
В Вто, 26/10/2010 в 18:20 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
I'm now trying to move all RBL and RHSBL checks to policyd-weight. In
policyd-weight I set $ADD_X_HEADER = 1 and very high score so it never
match.
Then I plan to parse X-policyd-weight header
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 10/27/2010 7:20 AM:
Can somebody comment on this please.
В Вто, 26/10/2010 в 18:20 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
I'm now trying to move all RBL and RHSBL checks to policyd-weight. In
policyd-weight I set $ADD_X_HEADER = 1 and very high score so it never
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them.
That is complete FUD, yes, I know what their website says, but knowing
the people
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them.
Hi,
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several
years and
are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for
them.
So there is problem with false-positives. There are not much of them,
but all cases needs additional investigation.
I removed several
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
are not
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 21:48 -0500, Al Zick wrote:
internal mail which is only imap would be
require [fileinto];
if header :contains X-Spam-Status [Yes,] {
fileinto Junk;
stop;
}
I have found 2 packages:
dovecot-sieve
libsieve
Could you tell me which one you are
Hi,
I have the following postfix configuration:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unknown_client_hostname,
reject_unknown_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
I'm now trying to move all RBL and RHSBL checks to policyd-weight. In
policyd-weight I set $ADD_X_HEADER = 1 and very high score so it never
match.
Then I plan to parse X-policyd-weight header with sieve script on
cyrus to move spam to separate imap folder. Header looks like this:
25 matches
Mail list logo
