Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
mouss pisze:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
there's no reason not to use reject_unverified
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:05 +
Jo__o Miguel Neves joao.ne...@intraneia.com wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading
João Miguel Neves wrote:
The SAV check in postfix is done with the postmaster address by default.
Recent postfix (2.5 and newer) use $double_bounce_sender as
the default for address_verify_sender. This recipient is
always valid, never delivered.
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that there's no reason not to
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
there's no reason
Paweł Leśniak escreveu:
João Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is
that
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
[snip]
Well, to be honest, I believe you did. If you will do many checks to the
same server (have on mind large ISPs with many domains) with different
emails, then probably your server will get blacklisted to send email
from postmaster@ (at least). If you want
mouss escreveu:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My
Jo??o Miguel Neves:
Pawe? Le?niak escreveu:
Jo?o Miguel Neves pisze:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means your GL
server need to
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
[snip]
let me fork a little: SAV on _header_ addresses is plain dumb:
Dec 15 11:25:33 imlil postmx/smtpd[23878]: NOQUEUE: warn: RCPT from
chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de[217.146.130.193]: Transaction logged:
PTR=chlothar.bnv-bamberg.de; from=spamch...@bnv-bamberg.de
On 2/10/2009 1:49 PM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion is that
mouss pisze:
João Miguel Neves a écrit :
OK, I'll take that into consideration if I re-enable SAV.
if you re-enable SAV, do as much checks as you can. the minimum is
zen.spamhaus.org. but you can also use spamcop.
it would also be good to do it after greylisting, but this means
14 matches
Mail list logo
