Re: [toaster] RE: what's up with clamav ???
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:22:35 +0200 Jussi Siponen wrote: Simscan can't extract the version information anymore. It kind of works if you have a previous installation (simscanmk -g throws a tantrum, though), but simscan won't compile with the latest ClamAV. For this one you might take a look at http://qmail.jms1.net/simscan/ -- Adi Pircalabu
Re: [toaster] Fake MX problem with qmail
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:02:45 +0200 Alessio Cecchi wrote: Some ISP use this trick like antispam solution: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks It's yet another half-baked(TM) solution to the spam problem. From my experience, more than 80% of the mail received by machines acting as secondary MX is spam. Based on this, it's an usual habbit to set up secondary MX records just to collect spam. But the wiki page says that with qmail remote server you can have some problem. And in fact i have find that qmail in some situations is unable to delivery the email in this situations. It's not quite a problem. If the primary MX is not available qmail-remote will retry to send the message later. Why? Is qmail that have problem with the RFC? Yes, qmail-remote does not try to deliver the message to secondary MX(s). In this case the ISP using that completely stupid setup is responsible for the breakage caused by using fake primary MX records. -- Adi Pircalabu
Re: [toaster] Fake MX problem with qmail
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:10:23 -0400 Rick Macdougall wrote: Actually, if the primary MX does not respond, qmail will try the higher MX. If the primary MX responds but temp fails the message, qmail will try the same MX again later. That's correct, thanks! -- Adi Pircalabu
Re: [toaster] Clamav- Simscan - Test Antivirus
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:12:36 +0200 Gabriele Furlotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've recently installed qmailtoaster 0.8.7 complete with clamav and simscan but it failed on test #15-#22-#23 on http://www.webmail.us/testvirus. #22 and #23 mails do not contain virii, so an antivirus should not block them. Any idea about . . . thanks to everybody. Please send me off list the message #15 unedited, as attachment, I'll take a look at it. OR upload it somewhere and publish the address. In any case, do not edit the message. -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [toaster] Clamav- Simscan - Test Antivirus #15 Error
(Cc-ed to the toaster list since there could be other subscribers interested) On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:07:18 +0200 Gabriele Furlotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the link : http://www.rantoloblog.it/download/Email-TEST.zip Here you have a uuencoded EICAR. The infected part must be detected. Please contact Clamav and/or Simscan developers. -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [toaster] Clamav- Simscan - Test Antivirus #15 Error
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:35:52 +0300 Adi Pircalabu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rantoloblog.it/download/Email-TEST.zip Here you have a uuencoded EICAR. The infected part must be detected. Please contact Clamav and/or Simscan developers. Here's what I've got after some testing: http://193.231.183.23/div/uuencoded-EICAR/ See README -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [toaster] smtp-auth
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:19:51 +0200 Max Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ telnet linux01.netformidling.dk 25 Trying wan ip... Connected to linux01.netformidling.dk. Escape character is '^]'. 220 linux01.netformidling.dk ESMTP ehlo test 502 Do you have another SMTP proxy in front of your system? That proxy probably does not implement some SMTP extensions. -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [toaster] Using maildrop with toaster quota support
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:48:11 +1030 David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MAILDIRQUOTA=`~vpopmail/bin/vuserinfo -q [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the maildrop filter file. Can anybody tell me if this works with the Shupp toaster? I have successfully integrated maildrop as my LDA in a Shupp toaster, but it seems blissfully unaware of users' quotas and quota warning/over-quota messages get lost, and when the account fills up, maildrop just spits errors and the mail stops with maildrop. I am looking for a way to make it quota-aware. Why don't you use deliverquota (part of courier-imap package, I guess)? I think it does exactly what you need. From the manpage: NAME deliverquota - deliver to a maildir with a quota SYNOPSIS deliverquota [ -c ] [ -w percent ] maildir quota DESCRIPTION deliverquota delivers mail to a maildir taking into account any software-imposed quota on the maildir. This manually-enforced quota mecha- nism is described in the maildirquota(7) and maildirmake(1) manual pages. Instead of setting up your mail server to deliver the message directly to a maildir, configure the mail server to run the deliv- erquota program in order to deliver the message, and specify the loca- tion of the maildir as the argument to deliverquota. -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [toaster] spam from localhost ??
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:51 -0800 (PST) Ernest Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is so strange that I got some spam. Its header does not has IP address, only localhost. That's impossible If the message comes via SMTP. We set smtp-auth according to the toaster. Following is the header: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 25973 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2006 08:44:44 - Received: by simscan 1.1.0 ppid: 25843, pid: 25952, t: 1.6100s scanners: attach: 1.1.0 clamav: 0.87.1/m:34/d:1183 spam: 3.1.0 Received: from localhost by mail.conco.com with SpamAssassin (version 3.1.0); Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:44:44 +0800 Very funny, are the above headers complete, unedited? Please check the message source again and post the complete Received: headers. Eventually: 1. Do you override SMTP-auth for 127.0.0.1 ? 2. Do you host on that system some form-mailer which can be abused via http? And: 0. Don't resend messages to the list, it's annoying -- Adrian Pircalabu -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
