On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek g...@stovebolt.com wrote:
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
comply with my concept of what is right.
Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which
indeed promotes a live and let live approach.
It is
On 2012-10-20, peter evans pe...@ixp.jp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 01:14:19PM +, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
From: Mike's unattended mail mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf
I think that about says how much value your opinions have.
* dnsbl
If it is good enough for the
On 21 Oct 2012, at 11:05, Mike's unattended mail
mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf wrote:
You're the first to post an ad hominem, without so much as even
bundling it with a single logical argument.
Which should have been the point where this thread immediately halted...
Please take your
On 2012-10-21, Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote:
Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's no longer
relevant to this list. Thanks.
If you perceive RFC compliance as a religious matter, please feel free
to disregard this thread. Thanks.
To be clear, the hot-headed remarks that
Am 21.10.2012 13:22, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
The logical debate to this point have not favored proponents of the
two crude and sloppy techniques that I mentioned. But, I'm open for
good rationale; both for my benefit and the OPs.
what is so difficult to undestand?
if you are
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:24 + (UTC)
Mike's unattended mail articulated:
Your whitehouse remark is an illogical appeal to authority. You're
actually the only one to have a post that's unworthy of response.
And yet you did ...
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u...@seibercom.net
On 20/10/2012 18:27, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
serious but either incompetent or on a
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
No, it isn't right to deliver spam. Spam should be rejected, because
if it isn't then the sending server has no incentive to clean up its
act.
How does a rejection create incentive for a spam-sending server to
clean up? If this is a
On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
How do you think a competent sys admin sets the EHLO under the
On 21/10/12 16:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
How do you think a
Am 21.10.2012 16:21, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
The RFC certainly does not insist that senders buy a domain name.
Who said anything about buying a domain name? Any server connected to
the Internet can have a host name,
If you use the FQDN format for the EHLO, it cannot be just any
--On October 21, 2012 9:53:49 AM + Mike's unattended mail
mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf wrote:
On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek g...@stovebolt.com wrote:
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
comply with my concept of what is right.
Then this means you are
Off-topic portions removed. Ditto Stan's comment: this thread needs
to come to an end. I already responded to the off-topic assertions
back in September, suggesting that it move to SDLU. I saw some
silliness in this thread, but I am refusing to be dragged into it.[1]
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at
On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.com wrote:
What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
* greylisting
crude and sloppy cost-cutting approaches:
* dnsbl
*
Am 20.10.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
crude and sloppy cost-cutting approaches:
* dnsbl
* reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
The crude and sloppy approaches are used by:
1) corporations maximizing profits. Their market consists of naive
users who have no idea
--On October 20, 2012 5:27:09 PM + Mike's unattended mail
mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who
Am 20.10.2012 18:01, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
On 10/20/2012 03:14 PM, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-09-21, Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.com wrote:
What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
* content analysis (high quality but computationally costly)
On 25/09/2012 16:52, francis picabia wrote:
I didn't see that response on the list, so perhaps it was sent to only
to you. This sounds like nonsense to me. DNS BL's block thousands of
messages cheaply, yes. What is wrong with that? Unless we have lots of
false positives, what is the problem?
-UCE.txt is a poor choice because of the damage it does to
legitimate mail. Although you may be stuck with it if you cannot
afford a server that can do a more intelligent analysis. But if your
resources are too tight to analyse every message, then you can't build
an ultimate email server
. Although you may be stuck with it if you cannot
afford a server that can do a more intelligent analysis. But if your
resources are too tight to analyse every message, then you can't build
an ultimate email server.
DNSBLs are a sloppy way to cut down on traffic - a strategy large
providers use
is a poor choice because of the damage it
does to legitimate mail. Although you may be stuck with it if
you cannot afford a server that can do a more intelligent
analysis. But if your resources are too tight to analyse every
message, then you can't build an ultimate email server
Den 2012-08-21 21:23, Jamie Paul Griffin skrev:
http://cowboyrushforth.com/2008-10-31/dspam_experiement
If you use the Sane Security Signatures with clamav that makes a big
difference.
if one start just allowing mails from trusted mail sources then it
works better, using 3rd party
Den 2012-08-22 18:51, Daniele Nicolodi skrev:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
dspam.
for spam reject its posssible to use dspam, but what about ham that
gets rejected ?
you cant relearn
Den 2012-08-22 18:57, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
dspam.
Yeah, like amavisd
and ask Mark for better dspam support ?, problem is not dspam but the
fact to learn
On 8/23/2012 1:52 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-08-22 18:57, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates
dspam.
Yeah, like amavisd
and ask Mark for better dspam support
would people be so gently and REMOVE [SPAM]-prefix
if replying to mailing-lists - any user of a barracuda
appliance with local rules in their client get the messages in
their junk-folder
proper configured mail-clients remove it automatically
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Den 2012-08-23 21:12, Noel Jones skrev:
If you use amavisd-new (+ dspam, + whatever else) as an
smtpd_proxy_filter, it's possible to save rejected mail in the
quarantine for retraining.
how does recipients train in this setup ?
and what about german law on this ?, one must only accept or
[ Daniele Nicolodi wrote on Tue 21.Aug'12 at 23:22:20 +0200 ]
On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
advice I finally ended up with:
OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
includes
On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
advice I finally ended up with:
OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
includes greylisting+greytrapping)
On 22/08/2012 18:47, Terry Barnum wrote:
On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
advice I finally ended up with:
OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup
* Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net:
Looks like this is not possible with dspam alone. Googling, the only
proposed solution I found is to use a SMPT proxy which integrates dspam.
Yeah, like amavisd
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité -
2012/8/15 Peter N. M. Hansteen pe...@bsdly.net
I beg to differ. spamd(8) in any configuration is a lot more lightweight
than
content filtering. You most likely will need content filtering in addition
to greylisting+greytrapping, but stopping them earlier is a real plus.
See eg
I use postfix with postscreen, spamhaus and other RBLs, nolist greylisting,
sqlgrey greylisting, amavisd-new (which calls in spamassassin), and clamav.
Freshclam and sa-update are run daily by cron.
Here are my stats today on the primary MX (actually secondary due to nolist)
Aug 21
Connect:
Thanks for the reply Francis!
Here on OpenBSD, spamd takes care of the greylisting so I'm all set there.
After much going back and forth regarding amavisd-new+spamassassin, I came
to the conclusion that it was an overly complex solution, written in a
dying language, that during the course of
[ Mikkel Bang wrote on Tue 21.Aug'12 at 21:06:20 +0200 ]
Thanks for the reply Francis!
Here on OpenBSD, spamd takes care of the greylisting so I'm all set there.
After much going back and forth regarding amavisd-new+spamassassin, I came
to the conclusion that it was an overly complex
On 21/08/2012 19:34, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all your
advice I finally ended up with:
OpenBSD + postfix-anti-UCE.txt + undeadly's spamd setup (which
includes greylisting+greytrapping) + dspam: https://gist.github.com/3417519
Feedback
On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Dropped:
- postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my setup
Did you really read the documentation? What is not clear in this section
Zitat von Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.com:
I'm trying to configure the ultimate email server for this webapp that
needs to send and receive / forward emails to and from thousands of users.
But with so many people recommending so many different tools, it gets hard
to come to a conclusion
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Dropped:
- postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my setup
Did you really read the documentation? What is not clear in
On 15/08/2012 16:09, andr...@east.nilpan.se wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 15/08/2012 14:09, Mikkel Bang wrote:
Dropped:
- postscreen: Looked into http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
but couldn't really find anything concrete to add to my setup
Did
. May be your
opinion will change after that.
Best regards---
Fernando Maior
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm trying to configure the ultimate email server for this webapp that
needs to send and receive / forward emails to and from thousands
IMO, greylisting via postgrey has had a really positive impact for reducing
inbound spam. The delay characteristics are configurable and the impact to
end-users can be minimized.
Also, IMO, configuring the ultimate email server is more about the needs of
your network and/or application
42 matches
Mail list logo
