Hi,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Pak Ogah pako...@pala.bo-tak.info wrote:
On 04/14/11 10:57, Pak Ogah wrote:
On 04/13/11 21:00, Peter Peltonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Bharath Chari
qmailtoas...@arachnis.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Warning : Badly formatted notes - will make
It could be that scanning is taking longer than your timeout setting.
What value do you have for idle-timeout-secs in spamdyke.conf?
FWIW, I have 180 presently.
It could also be that scanning is taking longer than the sending server
is willing to wait (sender times out first, then spamdyke
Eric on this issue of timeout from spamdyke that I see in the smtp logs
could it be something in the caching dns causing the problem?
This is what I'm finding out so far. If I send the person an email and they
reply back I'll get the message. If the person sends an email by typing in
my address I
On 05/02/2011 07:24 PM, Rajesh M wrote:
On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Rajesh M wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:50 PM, Rajesh M wrote:
hi
i wish to whitelist a client's server static ip in the spamassasin
trusted
network
i am entering the line like this
trusted_networks xxx.yyy
if i do this then the
On 05/03/2011 07:26 AM, Joel Eddy wrote:
Eric on this issue of timeout from spamdyke that I see in the smtp logs
could it be something in the caching dns causing the problem?
Anything's possible I suppose. I don't see a connection here to dns though.
This is what I'm finding out so far. If I
Idle-timeout-secs is 120 right now. I'll jack it up to 180.
[root@mx1 smtp]# clamd -V
ClamAV 0.97/13039/Tue May 3 07:30:41 2011
top - 09:44:31 up 4 days, 22:07, 1 user, load average: 0.24, 0.28, 0.24
Tasks: 227 total, 1 running, 226 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s):
This looks hunky dory to me. :)
Sounding to me like something's choking on content somehow based on what
you said previously.
I'd like to see detail spamdyke log, and *all* related smtp log messages.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 05/03/2011 07:46 AM, Joel Eddy wrote:
Idle-timeout-secs is 120 right
I created the dir but what should the user group be set to.
Spamdyke is being denied access at this point.
_
From: Eric Shubert [mailto:e...@shubes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:38 AM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re: Re; Timout issue
On
Greetings QMail list...
I am in the unenviable position of admitting that some of my QMail is FM
to me (FM is f***ing magic or, in plainer terms I know it works,
I just don't know how) -- and that has me in a bit of a quandary
I host web e-mail for some of my clients and I have a
--
Keith Smith Internet Marketing LLC
(480) 272-9268
PHP Programming Services
Search Engine Optimization
On 05/03/2011 09:07 AM, Dan McAllister wrote:
Greetings QMail list...
I am in the unenviable position of admitting that some of my QMail is FM
to me (FM is f***ing magic or, in plainer terms I know it works,
I just don't know how) -- and that has me in a bit of a quandary
I host web
I agree with Eric on the Spamdyke portion. I was thinking the same thing,
but didn't have an answer for the SpamAssassin portion, so I didn't reply!
:-)
I run SpamDyke more for the benefit of my server. The benefit for the
client is secondary. If you disable it, your certainly going to
On 5/3/2011 9:20 AM, Keith Smith wrote:
--
Keith Smith Internet Marketing LLC
(480) 272-9268
PHP Programming Services
Search Engine Optimization
QmailToaster Wiki appears to be down.
-
Qmailtoaster is
I stink I fingered it out. Firewall.
_
From: Eric Shubert [mailto:e...@shubes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:25 AM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re: Re; Timout issue
vpopmail:vchkpw
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 05/03/2011 08:16 AM, Joel Eddy wrote:
Besides the max-recipients=50 in spamdyke.conf is there somewhere else
that controls the max-recipients also. Qmail, Spamassassin or ?
I've got users with Norton AV that keep getting an error that they're
sending to too many even with only 27 recipients.
GR I HATE EMAIL ;-)
Joel
Care to elaborate?
(Inquiring minds want to know) ;)
On 05/03/2011 10:24 AM, Joel Eddy wrote:
I stink I fingered it out. Firewall.
*From:*Eric Shubert [mailto:e...@shubes.net]
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:25 AM
*To:*
Hi,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
that. Spamdyke false positives are practically nonexistent though, so you
might want to just leave spamdyke active and not tell him about it. Then
again, if he insists on receiving spam, I'd charge him extra for the load
chkuser can have such options.
Regards,
Tonino
Il 03/05/2011 19:36, Joel Eddy ha scritto:
Besides the max-recipients=50 in spamdyke.conf is there somewhere else
that controls the max-recipients also. Qmail, Spamassassin or ?
I've got users with Norton AV that keep getting an error that
I've got a bridging firewall that is ahead of all my servers and the mail
server. I've got that set so tight that it must have been blocking
something with the mail processing. What I've got to go figure out yet. But
for now I've got it straight to the pub side of the switch.
And the message I
tcp.smtp has CHKUSER_RCPTLIMIT=50 so it and spamdyke.conf match on that
point.
I'll see what I can find about chkuser.
Thanks.
_
From: Tonix (Antonio Nati) [mailto:to...@interazioni.it]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:40 PM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: Re:
NOTE: I have seen this behavior when SSL connections are made and there
is not enough RAM allocated for the SSL libraries. The result is that
the SMTP (actually the qmail-smtp service) hangs (bad memory alloc), and
so never returns
On 5/3/2011 11:14 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
This looks hunky
I hear ya. I just ran into this yesterday as well.
What I did to correct the issue was to add the email address to the
/etc/spamdyke/whitelist_recipients file.
The recipients mail server was an exchange server(yuck bad word) but it used
postini to screen their spam.
The rDNS resolved back to
There is another variable for max wrong recipients, which is the real
anti-intrusion action.
See
http://www.interazioni.it/opensource/chkuser/documentation/chkuser_settings.html.
Tonino
Il 03/05/2011 19:50, Joel Eddy ha scritto:
tcp.smtp has CHKUSER_RCPTLIMIT=50 so it and spamdyke.conf
This is true, however a LARGE amount of spam is sent from IP's with no RDNS.
By not blocking those e-mails, you're certainly forcing your mail server to
deal with a MUCH larger amount of mail, most of which would be spam. I
guess if you don't have a resource issue, and don't mind wasting
Interesting.
FWIW, I wouldn't put any firewall/filtering device in front of
QMT/spamdyke. Router/NAT ok, but I don't think there'd be any benefit to
anything more. They can make spamdyke less effective as well. Nothing
but trouble. ;( Keep It Simple Stupid. :)
On 05/03/2011 10:47 AM, Joel
On 05/03/2011 10:38 AM, Peter Peltonen wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Eric Shuberte...@shubes.net wrote:
that. Spamdyke false positives are practically nonexistent though, so you
might want to just leave spamdyke active and not tell him about it. Then
again, if he insists on
Lack of rDNS records will cause messages to fail to MSN/Hotmail, and
Yahoo! accounts (don't know about Gmail)... I'm not at all worried about
the blocking of messages (the SPAM he doesn't see he won't bitch
about)... he just didn't like the ***SPAM*** label behavior! BTW: I
warned him that
Well said, Michael. +1
On 05/03/2011 10:58 AM, Michael J. Colvin wrote:
This is true, however a LARGE amount of spam is sent from IP's with no RDNS.
By not blocking those e-mails, you're certainly forcing your mail server to
deal with a MUCH larger amount of mail, most of which would be spam.
Little bit I know but sometimes graylisting also cause the time-out problem.
Amit Dalia
Join Us: http://www.facebook.com/IKFPune
cid:image001.png@01CBA820.E533FB00 http://in.linkedin.com/in/ikfpune
cid:image002.png@01CBA820.E533FB00 http://twitter.com/ikfpune
KISS seems to work every time. I guess that's what I get for being so
staunch on SPAM.
Thanks for your input. ;-)
Have good one.
_
From: Eric Shubert [mailto:e...@shubes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:00 PM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re:
KISS seems to work every time. I guess that's what I get for being so
staunch on SPAM.
Thanks for your input. ;-)
Have good one.
_
From: Eric Shubert [mailto:e...@shubes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:00 PM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re:
The fix is to edit your SSL-capable run files in /var/qmail/supervise/*/run
Depending on what you've got configured, you may need to modify:
*smtp*, *submission*, *smtp-ssl*, *pop-ssl*, *imap-ssl*.
The last line in each of those run files is the exec that spawns the
actual program -- and the
Hi.
Good comment about the Binary v Source - thats actually the strength of
this recipe as I a see it, it blends source packages and provides a neat
rpm install
The challenge is not so much the disk space as the memory requirement to
compile clam on the machine once the machine is deployed - man
33 matches
Mail list logo
