Zitat von /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
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/how would one collect such
On 2012-04-17 6:54 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
Not if they are using said spamfilter service for relaying their
outbound mail
Am 18.04.2012 14:13, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2012-04-17 6:54 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
Not if they are using said
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
room for improvement though (IPv6 missing, rsyslog spawning and lastline
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 the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
room for improvement
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
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 the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished
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 the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine
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 the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
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
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 barracuda.thelounge.net
but you will never receive any message from our
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
Am 17.04.2012 12:47, schrieb Henrik K:
the majority has outgoing and incoming on the same IP?
in which world are you living?
Statistics speak for themselves. Come back with hard facts instead of
your FUD.
are you really too stupid not use the term FUD
as long you are not understand what
On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the same
outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam gateways or
hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas outbound mail coming
from another IP and server.
Just imagine
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 2012-04-17 12:09, Robert Schetterer wrote:
what about using
some tecs from here
http://mailfud.org/postpals/
Thanks for the link, that's pretty much what I was looking for. Guess
I'll have to improve my search engine skills ;)
--
Claudius
Am 17.04.2012 13:05, schrieb Henrik K:
Some people actually test theories before calling them nonsense. You
haven't made a single point why there would be non-benefits in running
postpals.
maybe you should have read my replies?
you are sending to the MX
you are whitelisting the MX
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
Am 17.04.2012 13:37, schrieb Henrik K:
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
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
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik
You do realize that the whitelisting should only apply to direct MTA
rbl/greylisting/ptr/etc rules? If that's your _only_ defence, then yes I
guess you should not use postpals.
if you think it makes sense for you do it
but realize that others have more
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal attacks while nobody attacked you until you
creeped
Zitat von Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal
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
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with
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
is
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Claudius wrote:
On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the
same outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam
gateways or hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas
Quoting Henrik K h...@hege.li:
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
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 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/how would one collect such data? My mail stream differs from
28 matches
Mail list logo
