On 18-Jan-2010, at 14:20, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
/usr/bin/whtlst_gen.sh
#! /bin/sh
# [1] grab all sent to addresses from the current mail log
sed -n -e '/postfix\/smtp\[.*status=sent/s/^.*to=\([^]*\).*$/\1/p'
/var/log/mail.log | sort -u /tmp/sender_addrs.tmp
# merge the new addresses with
On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote:
You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-Spam solution if you skip
certain senders. Does your Anti-Spam solution not have an mechanism to
automatically skip checking mails form senders you communicate often?
Oh, I dunno. I have manually
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:14 -0700
Von: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote:
You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-Spam solution if you
Steve put forth on 1/19/2010 7:10 PM:
I have another opinion on that. The Anti-Spam solution I use has normally
0.01 seconds (or less but could be more as well) per message when classifying
a mail for Ham/Spam. Every processing of a message allows me to increase the
accuracy of the
Many people don't use content filters in their anti-spam arsenals. For
these
folks (including myself) whitelisting is a valuable tool, and if done
correctly
won't introduce any additional exposure to spam via spoofed sender
addresses.
I know that.
If you're gasping and wondering how
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
The goal is simple - there are some people businesses my company
needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
a message carrying critical business information
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to accomplish this
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve all the
recipient MX ips.
MX
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve all the
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to
Daniel L. Miller:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing, you would have the policy
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for example, to call another
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing,
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
needs to receive forms from the new
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
needs to
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
The goal is simple - there are some people businesses my company
needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
a message carrying critical
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:54PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't
On 18-Jan-2010, at 11:37, Victor Duchovni wrote:
This thread is NOT about address validation, it is about automatic
whitelisting of addresses (as senders) that are observed in outgoing
mail as recipients. No validation is required.
This should be pretty easy to add into a greylisting service
The following solution solves 99% of the problem:
- IF mail is from a local (or authenticated) client
- AND the sender has already passed reject_unlisted_sender
- THEN store the (sender, recipient) pair in a whitelist.
This can be done with trivial modification of an existing greylisting
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 1:30 PM:
If you _need_ a home brew solution _now_, start small and inelegant,
getting
most of the functionality you want/need. This can be done with simple
scripts
and cron. After it's working relatively well, _then_ spend time
creating the
elegant
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
Von: Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:05, Steve stev...@gmx.net wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
Von: Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
Stan Hoeppner wrote
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a solution whose core feature is
challenge/response. C/R is one of those cures
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if
you
want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
want my
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:30, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:17:43 -0500
Von: Mark Nernberg (gmail account) marknernb...@gmail.com
An: Steve stev...@gmx.net
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17
--
sent from my mobile phone
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:54, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:06:13 -0500
Von: Mark Nernberg (gmail account) marknernb...@gmail.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
CC: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
--
sent from my
I realize the developers and senior ops may be a bit irritated by some
of my recent queries. I plead ignorance - and a desire to improve.
I currently utilize ASSP as my primary filter. In the past, I have
heard that there is nothing ASSP does that cannot be done utilizing
alternative tools
34 matches
Mail list logo
