Federico Giannici wrote:
What about combining BlackListing and GreyListing?
I'm experimenting ab it with that right now. I've got my greylisting code to
use a configurable number of checks before it decides if the greylist should be
in use for an incoming connection. The idea is to avoid
On Thu, November 2, 2006 20:22, Mark wrote:
The rest of the invalid HELOs are just non-FQDNSs (like HELO friend), or
IP addresses (not inside braces, like an address literal).
could be a spammer that call his computer friend since Microsoft have a
habit of deniding . in the computer name
On Thu, November 2, 2006 17:03, Randy Smith wrote:
I use policyd and give my users the ability to optout (or optin depending on
the domain settings) of greylisting if they choose. They can do it through a
plugin in SquirrelMail so, if they choose, they can turn it off for a few
minutes to
On Fri, November 3, 2006 11:53, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Due to the dynamic nature of this test, I guess that at least in the postfix
case it should need to be somehow embedded into the greylisting server: it
seems postfix doesn't allow to specify more than one policy server in the
Federico Giannici wrote:
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
to be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
them.
What about combining
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to
be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on them.
What about combining BlackListing and GreyListing?
I'd like to
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the
email have to
be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only
based on them.
What about combining BlackListing and GreyListing?
Federico Giannici wrote:
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
to be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
them.
What about combining BlackListing
Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 16:04 schrieb Amos:
(...)
Actually, it's getting to the extent that some at work are raising
questions as to whether our SA setup will be able to
maintain adequate
protection from this growing onslaught.
Amos
Only AFTER adequate initial RBL filtering.
Federico Giannici wrote:
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
to be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
them.
What about combining BlackListing
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam
folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
bonnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've not finished
looking at the Ash's to see
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam
folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
bonnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've
not finished
looking at the
On 11/2/06, Debbie D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I could not keep
it quiet
There's been a lot of chatter about this:
Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 16:04 schrieb Amos:
(...)
Actually, it's getting to the extent that some at work are raising
questions as to whether our SA setup will be able to maintain adequate
protection from this growing onslaught.
Amos
Only AFTER adequate initial RBL filtering.
On 11/2/06, Debbie D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I
could not keep
it quiet
There's been a lot of chatter about this:
Greylisting is not always good... The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be delever fast. For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have access to the internet. You can access internet without authentification for 15 minutes. In this 15
Greylisting is not always good... The greylisting insert delay in
delevery and sometimes the email have to be delever fast. For
example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have access
to the internet. You can access internet without authentification for 15
On Thursday 02 November 2006 08:42, François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be
delever fast.
For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have
access to the internet. You
Amos wrote:
On 11/2/06, Debbie D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I could
not keep
it quiet
There's been a lot of chatter about this:
What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and it
doesn't add much of a delay.
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Fran?ois Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be
delever fast.
For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have
access to the internet. You
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:00
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it's been a struggle
Da: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and it
doesn't add much of a delay.
Well,
Mark wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:00
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it's been
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:58
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
92% (!) of all incoming spam uses an invalid HELO.
9% pretends to be me in their HELO
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Chris wrote:
I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
botnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've not finished
looking at the ASN's to see where
From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it's been a struggle. Most of my spam
defense isn't SA though. I'm using Exim rules to do most of the
work and SA gets what's left.
Same
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Da: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and
From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
92% (!) of all incoming spam uses an invalid HELO.
9% pretends to be me in their HELO.
Is this 9% included in the above 'invalid HELO' number?
Yes. I should have been more clear about that. 92% fails the HELO
29 matches
Mail list logo
