On 12/10/2017 11:49 AM, Colony.three wrote:
*
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
with that config and postscreen properly configured you block far more
than 90% of junk without risk false positives
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 8
postscreen_dnsbl_action =
> - http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
>
> with that config and postscreen properly configured you block far more
> than 90% of junk without risk false positives
>
> postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 8
> postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
> postscreen_greet_action = enforce
>
On 12/09/2017 05:40 AM, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
...
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 04:24, Jari Fredriksson > wrote:
0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
I would recommend setting the score for SPF_FAIL to a point or two these
days. Major
...
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 04:24, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) @whyscream.net>
wow... depending on your geolocation, the phishing text changes and, at least
in Spanish, it is totally correct!!
sometimes i have to take my hat off...
-PedroD
> first: before you call me again a fascist just because i don't agree
> with your opinions backed by 10 years professional mailadmin better
> don't give half thought advises!
>
> Am 09.12.2017 um 03:50 schrieb Colony.three:
>
>> Also in /etc/postfix/main.cf add to smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> Tom Hendrikx kirjoitti 9.12.2017 kello 0.34:
>
> On 08-12-17 19:09, AJ Weber wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
>>
>> https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
>>
>> Looking at the raw headers and body it's pretty easy to tell this is a
>>
> Tom Hendrikx kirjoitti 9.12.2017 kello 0.34:
>
> On 08-12-17 19:09, AJ Weber wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
>>
>> https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
>>
>> Looking at the raw headers and body it's pretty easy to tell this is a
>>
> I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
>
> https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
>
> Looking at the raw headers and body it's pretty easy to tell this is a
> spoof, but when it shows-up in an inbox, it looks pretty good.
>
> Something specific to Amazon (where this is purported
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, AJ Weber wrote:
I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
That appears to be corrupt. I downloaded it and ran it through my testbed and
it wouldn't decode the body.
Don't know
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, AJ Weber wrote:
I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
That appears to be corrupt. I downloaded it and ran it through my testbed
and it wouldn't decode the body.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On 08-12-17 19:09, AJ Weber wrote:
> I'm trying to decide the best way to detect something like this.
>
> https://pastebin.com/hCX9MWNg
>
> Looking at the raw headers and body it's pretty easy to tell this is a
> spoof, but when it shows-up in an inbox, it looks pretty good.
>
> Something
AJ,
i cannot see anything with sense... is the pastebin correct?
-PedroD
13 matches
Mail list logo