On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 07:49:49PM -0600, Al Zick wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:52 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote:
> >>On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote:
> >>>Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps
> >
On 2012-01-15 Al Zick wrote:
> Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including
> some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do
> you do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are
> being blocked? I guess that you can use them if you don't
On 1/16/2012 7:15 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-01-15 8:49 PM, Al Zick wrote:
>> Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including
>> some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do you
>> do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are
On 2012-01-15 8:49 PM, Al Zick wrote:
Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including
some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do you
do when people that you need to be in contact with everyday are being
blocked?
Don't use the list causing them to b
Al Zick:
> I am not trying to start a flame war with anyone. Obviously you
> understand what effective spam filtering should look like.
>
> Here is where I am at: I had about 10 of RBLs at one time (including
> some of the ones you mentioned), but I slowly removed them. What do
> you do when
Hi,
On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:52 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote:
Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps
^
greylisting and you upd
On 1/13/2012 4:57 PM, Al Zick wrote:
> If I don't whitelist these servers, then if it bounces an email that has
> been sent because of a .forward, then the server with the .forward tries
> to redeliver the email for something like 5 days to my server. Is there
> another solution to this? I don't h
On Friday 13 January 2012 16:57:21 Al Zick wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote:
> > Apart from this if you use some trustable RBL, perhaps
^
> > greylisting and you update Spamassassin rules regularly...
> > you shoul
Hi,
On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea Aurre wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote:
Hi,
For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless,
creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to
P
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote:
Hi,
For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless,
creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to
Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients
fix
On 1/11/2012 11:15 PM, Al Zick wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless,
> creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to
> Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients
> fixed this problem. Still we seem to be
Am 12.01.2012 06:15, schrieb Al Zick:
> Hi,
>
> For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless,
> creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to
> Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients
> fixed this problem. Still we seem to be
Hi,
For a while we ran Qmail. Qmail would accept all emails regardless,
creating a very serious backscatter problem. Of course, switching to
Postfix with it configured to only accept emails for our recipients
fixed this problem. Still we seem to be losing the war with spam. I
whitelisted
13 matches
Mail list logo
