RE: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Scott Techlist
>There is no need to duplicate the threshold check. I'm not duplicating the check. I was just considering using the logged, recorded checks (of a minimum value) and making use of those. They could trigger a ban of the IP via fail2ban's respective jail's frequency settings, based on those log

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Allen Coates
On 17/07/17 21:04, Scott Techlist wrote: >> Postcreen logs DISCONNECT for clients that PASS the "after 220 greeting" >> tests (bare newline, non-SMTP command, pipelining). > Exactly what I was afraid of, thanks for the confirmation. > >> I don't think there is much to gain from parsing

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* Wietse Venema : > Scott Techlist: > > As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts, > > I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they > > try repeatedly. > > > > I have fail2ban running already and once I

RE: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Scott Techlist
>Postcreen logs DISCONNECT for clients that PASS the "after 220 greeting" >tests (bare newline, non-SMTP command, pipelining). Exactly what I was afraid of, thanks for the confirmation. >I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging to produce >fail2ban rules. postscreen is

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Allen Coates
On 17/07/17 16:43, Scott Techlist wrote: > As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts, > I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they > try repeatedly. > > I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't seem

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 17.07.2017 um 20:06 schrieb /dev/rob0: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:33:24PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: >> I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging >> to produce fail2ban rules. postscreen is designed to handle a lot >> of abuse with near-zero resources. > > Granted,

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread /dev/rob0
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:33:24PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > I don't think there is much to gain from parsing postscreen logging > to produce fail2ban rules. postscreen is designed to handle a lot > of abuse with near-zero resources. Granted, not much benefit within Postfix. But consider:

Re: postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Scott Techlist: > As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts, > I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they > try repeatedly. > > I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't seem > to have much to do

postscreen fail2ban filter

2017-07-17 Thread Scott Techlist
As I watch the bots and spammers hammer my server with connection attempts, I figured I might as well stop them even closer to the front door when they try repeatedly. I have fail2ban running already and once I enabled postscreen it didn't seem to have much to do anymore. My primary question is: