On 9/11/2011 3:40 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 15:58, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> Ah. Let me throw another idea your way, then: milter-regex. It would
>> allow you to validate recipient addresses against those regexes and
>> reject at SMTP-time if they don't match. Then the catch-all would only
>>
On 11/09/2011 15:58, John Hardin wrote:
>> Email addresses that are actually used conform, typically, to a
>> fairly constrained set of regexps (but not a constrained list of
>> valid addresses...)
>
> Ah. Let me throw another idea your way, then: milter-regex. It would
> allow you to validate reci
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
On 08/09/2011 22:50, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
@mydom.org st...@mydom.org
I want all messages to all users delivered to steve.
That's really discouraged these days, because spammers send a _lot_ of
mail to essentially randomly-gener
On 08/09/2011 22:50, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
>> @mydom.org st...@mydom.org
>> I want all messages to all users delivered to steve.
>
> That's really discouraged these days, because spammers send a _lot_ of
> mail to essentially randomly-generated addresses in the hope
On 9/8/2011 5:59 PM, Jay Plesset wrote:
> On 9/8/2011 2:53 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2011 2:26 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>
In any case, as it turns out, none of this helps me store a single
inbound spam once - rather than duplicate it for eac
If each message is indeed a separate message, then no sane MTA could
find them the "same" message. Each will have a unique message ID, and
will have different envelope addresses. I certainly would not use an
MTA that would combine such.
jay plesset
Oracle Messaging Server support.
On 9/8/201
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 9/8/2011 2:26 PM, Steve wrote:
In any case, as it turns out, none of this helps me store a single
inbound spam once - rather than duplicate it for each address in the
envelope... which, to my thinking, remains a sane objective...
Agreed. Although y
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
On 08/09/2011 17:04, Mark Martinec wrote:
Sep 8 15:04:43 svr amavis[9242]: (09242-14)
Passed SPAM, [208.30.118.112] [208.30.118.112]
->
,,,
,,,
,,
Message-ID: <201109081759.8B7F082565A0D33F9A15@p00905q4tw>,
mail_id: 0eFkT73PzE2y, Hits: 25.936, s
On 9/8/2011 2:26 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 08/09/2011 19:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Keep in mind that the "To:" header in an email is for decorative
>> purposes only and has no relevance at all to where the email is
>> delivered. In a normal email, the "To:" header will generally match
>> with the dest
On 08/09/2011 19:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Keep in mind that the "To:" header in an email is for decorative
> purposes only and has no relevance at all to where the email is
> delivered. In a normal email, the "To:" header will generally match
> with the destination, but with spam, anything goes. F
On 9/8/2011 1:21 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> I understand. I'd expected the mail message header to reflect the
> address to which the message was sent - as under "normal"
> circumstances. It struck me as being odd that the email addresses the
> originator specified would occur no-where in the messages po
On 08/09/2011 17:04, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Sep 8 15:04:43 svr amavis[9242]: (09242-14)
> Passed SPAM, [208.30.118.112] [208.30.118.112]
>->
> ,,,
> ,,,
>,,
> Message-ID: <201109081759.8B7F082565A0D33F9A15@p00905q4tw>,
> mail_id: 0eFkT73PzE2y, Hits: 25.936, size: 1608, queued_as:
Steve,
> I'm using a (mostly vanilla) Postfix/Amvisd configuration...
> [...]
> > If you look at your mail logs, do you actually see 9 messages being
> > received?
> I thought I did, but - now - I'm not so sure... because the log doesn't
> match the messages I find via IMAP. (Really!)
>
> I've at
On 08/09/2011 14:21, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 9/8/2011 5:07 AM, Steve wrote:
>> This is the thing that was so very, very odd. The message is identical
>> - including the headers. If I look at the first and last spam email in
>> a 9-message block, then u to get the source, and paste them into
>> fil
On 9/8/2011 5:07 AM, Steve wrote:
> This is the thing that was so very, very odd. The message is identical
> - including the headers. If I look at the first and last spam email in
> a 9-message block, then u to get the source, and paste them into
> files... diff confirms that the messages are byte-
On 07/09/2011 16:10, John Hardin wrote:
>> I don't want to use greylisting as I often receive legitimate email from
>> new contacts - often while I'm on the phone to them - so, introducing a
>> delay is undesirable to me.
>
> Perhaps a hybrid approach, where you greylist only if the foreign IP
> ap
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Peter Nitschke wrote:
Greylisting would just mean the first one would be delayed - the rest would
go through as they are identical emails.
If they are identical (same from, same to, same source IP), all copies
would be delayed for the configured greylisting period after th
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 13:57:39 +0930, Peter Nitschke wrote:
Greylisting would just mean the first one would be delayed - the rest
would
go through as they are identical emails.
policyd v2 is designed for this
I would be looking to use Fail2ban as a solution depending on what
your
logs show.
Greylisting would just mean the first one would be delayed - the rest would
go through as they are identical emails.
I would be looking to use Fail2ban as a solution depending on what your
logs show.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/09/2011 at 12:14 PM John Hardin wrote:
>On Fri,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
I wonder, would it be possible to reject an email identical (same
originating IP; same addressee; same subject) to an email received in
the last minute, say, that had a spamassassin score of over 30? If I
could find a way to do that, I could reduce the volume of
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:13:32 +0100, Steve wrote:
Does anyone do this already?
spamassassin is not currently designed for this kind of sender
tracking, but it could be in next version if one make the needs plugins
:=)
currently only option you have is to use policyd v2 to make what you
lik
On 9/2/11 10:13 AM, Steve wrote:
could find a way to do that, I could reduce the volume of spam I have to
process/store by a factor of about 8. Rejecting only emails with
credentials identical to known recent highly scoring spam would make the
risk of false positives minimal.
Does anyone do thi
There is something curious I've noticed... I'm wondering if I'm unique,
and if there's an obvious way to improve my setup.
I was thumbing through my spam folder, and noticed that the bulk of my
spam conformed to a very obvious pattern... On a time period from
minutes to hours, I receive nine ident
23 matches
Mail list logo
