Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 04.08.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Chris: > Greylisting is just one of several tools available to a system > administrator for filtering out spam as multiple described it does not Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer -- [*] sys4 AG http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG,

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

I do not use postfix but I do greylist so I thought I would chime in with my opinion. Greylisting is just one of several tools available to a system administrator for filtering out spam, like any of the other tools if used incorrectly it will be problematic. I do much cheaper filtering first

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its problem postfix can use

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 02.08.2016 um 23:02 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix which is not the topic but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-02 21:27, Robert Schetterer wrote: you may use a complete postfix server including postscreen etc "before" sendmailbut then it might better to simply change to postfix in total, but such setups are often use with MS exchange if that can serve as a content-filter it could be

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote: Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail MTA? content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use content-filter to help on its problem postfix can use sendmail as a content-filter what goal ?

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2 Aug 2016, at 14:00, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 02.08.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin: >> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: >> >>> What's special about the postscreen delay is: >>> >>> 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it >>> catches MANY more bots than a

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin: On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote: What's special about the postscreen delay is: 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY more bots than a simple delay. 2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by default) delay that it imposes only hits

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 02.08.2016 um 18:55 schrieb Bill Cole: Combined, this is why Sendmail and other MTA greeting delays are less spectacularly effective than they used to be and less effective than postscreen. The resource cost of prolonging every session to 6s is untenable for busy machines, so bots that have

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 1 Aug 2016, at 15:53, Axb wrote: On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent Fox wrote: I keep seeing people say "well if you have postscreen, greylisting is just dumb". I think that's a bit too strong. Robust greylisting that accommodates the reality of mail systems that share one spool across many

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 01 Aug 2016, at 11:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: >>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be >>> that postscreen is bad aswell ? > > On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote: >>

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 02.08.2016 um 00:05 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 2016-08-01 19:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: while we're at it, I really don't understand why they do it like this. what's the point behind changing IP address after each delivery attempt? goal is to expose more networks ips to be

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-01 19:18, Larry Rosenman wrote: Shared outbound spool, and the next available host sends it. next host start a new greylist time frame to delay again It's not nefarious, just load balancing. yes misunderstanding what not to do

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-01 19:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: while we're at it, I really don't understand why they do it like this. what's the point behind changing IP address after each delivery attempt? goal is to expose more networks ips to be blocked at the recipient server for abuse, ironical :)

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 01.08.2016 um 23:36 schrieb sha...@shanew.net: Others could probably add to that list, but that's just off the top of my head. But, even if a spam source retries and successfully makes it past the greylisting, the greylisting still provides potential benefits, like: - While it was waiting

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote: Greylisting was invented as an idea against bots. Its based on the idea that bots "fire and forget" when they see a tmp error and dont get back. But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented. The only problem now is people

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

together a simulacrum. From: Axb <axb.li...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 12:53:27 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold) On 01.08.2016 21:30, V

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent Fox wrote: I keep seeing people say "well if you have postscreen, greylisting is just dumb". Well what is the equivalent for other MTA? google for "Greet pause" and "Early talker" afaik there's implementations for Sendmail and Haraka. There may be something

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

ve? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold) On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer <r...@sys4.de> wrote: > But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented. > The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff. Yeah, th

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 01.08.2016 um 19:02 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be that postscreen is bad aswell ? On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote: Sure, if by “invalid” you mean

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-01 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be that postscreen is bad aswell ? On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote: Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon,

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be that postscreen is bad aswell ? On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote: Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines, large mail services,

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >>> >>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be >>> that postscreen is bad aswell ? >> Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines, >> large mail services, and many

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-01 15:46, @lbutlr wrote: Where did you get the idea that postfix will not deliver later? i did not say that i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be that postscreen is bad aswell ? Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On 2016-08-01 05:55, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote: >>> But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented. >>> The only problem now is people still believe in

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 2016-08-01 05:55, @lbutlr wrote: On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote: But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented. The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff. Yeah, that about sums it up. Greylisting never worked

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote: > But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented. > The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff. Yeah, that about sums it up. Greylisting never worked well, always caused problems with

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 30.07.2016 um 13:10 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote: > >> Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald: >>> >>> >>> Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote:

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 30.07.2016 um 23:10 schrieb Bill Cole: On 30 Jul 2016, at 7:10, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote: I'm no expert here, but postgrey is usually a purely local test. It should terminate with a "currently busy, try again later" message very quickly. Unless your database is very large, yes. SPF

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On 30 Jul 2016, at 7:10, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote: I'm no expert here, but postgrey is usually a purely local test. It should terminate with a "currently busy, try again later" message very quickly. Unless your database is very large, yes. SPF checks and white listing require dns lookups

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 30.07.2016 um 13:10 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge: On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: I don't use postfix

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: I don't use postfix or postscreen. hm.. that does not fit the subject..why

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll: >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 >> Robert Schetterer wrote: >> I don't use postfix or postscreen. >>> hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ? >>

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: I don't use postfix or postscreen. hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ? I am sorry. I should have changed the thread subject. you may

Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: > > I don't use postfix or postscreen. > hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ? I am sorry. I should have changed the thread subject. > you may get that quite better, i see > a lot of

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Robert, As I tried to point out you are at the end of a thread injecting new “life” into it, which isn’t benefitting the group discussion of an issue. Thank you, Ryan > On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll: >> On

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:21:04 +0200 > Robert Schetterer wrote: > >> now compare with pure postscreen > > I don't use postfix or postscreen. hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ? All I'm showing is that

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

informative > > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer <r...@sys4.de >> <mailto:r...@sys4.de>> wrote: >> >> the subject Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold >> does not match spamassassin list theme >> >> howev

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:21:04 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: > now compare with pure postscreen I don't use postfix or postscreen. All I'm showing is that greylisting stops a lot of mail, quite cheaply. And hardly anyone notices it. This is a production system filtering email

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 22:15 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:13:56 +0200 > Robert Schetterer wrote: > >> so i.e measure mails tagged as spam by spamassassin >> with pure greylisting setup running before tagging ,perhaps for one >> week, then stop greylisting ,do the same

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:13:56 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: > so i.e measure mails tagged as spam by spamassassin > with pure greylisting setup running before tagging ,perhaps for one > week, then stop greylisting ,do the same with pure postscreen setup, > compare results, this way

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Apparently you missed the rest of the thread as it was bypassing the scanning the SA would do. But you’re jumping in 11 days (and 42 messages) after the thread started. > On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer <r...@sys4.de> wrote: > > the subject Using Postf

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 20:45 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:36:51 +0200 > Robert Schetterer wrote: > >> Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll: >>> I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has >>> minimal impact. We have it on by default on

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:36:51 +0200 Robert Schetterer wrote: > Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > > I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has > > minimal impact. We have it on by default on our spam-filtering > > service and very few people

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has > minimal impact. We have it on by default on our spam-filtering > service and very few people have even noticed it. show evidence, dont speculate ,measure i ve done it over years,

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

;> >>> Harald, please try to be more polite, and cut your fuse longer >> >> seriously - i find it interesting that you tell that me instead the >> creature which starts calling others names > > I was considering the entire exchange, not just your final response. > Your co

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 29.07.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Shawn Bakhtiar: >> >>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote: >>> >>> On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: I would generalize that

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 29.07.2016 um 18:15 schrieb John Hardin: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > > > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald > > > wrote: > > > > Am 28.07.2016

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: The reality is most of us (the other 99%) are not dedicated mail admins and hence that ones should listen was dedicated sysadmins spent thousands of hours in rock stable system are explaining ...which would be a lot easier to do if it didn't come

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:12:55 -0600 "@lbutlr" wrote: > Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice there are so many > large emailers who can’t do email properly that is causes more > trouble than it prevents. I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:34:30 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > what do you use? DCC? No, we have our own code. > >1) If our customer has whitelisted a sender, but the whitelisted > >sender is in the From: header and not the envelope, we want the > >ability to skip

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Shawn Bakhtiar: On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote: On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners,

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 19:12 schrieb @lbutlr: On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging, etc.). Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: >> I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come >> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging, >> etc.). > > Greylisting is

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: > I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come > before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging, > etc.). Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice there are so many large emailers who

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 18:15 schrieb John Hardin: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > > I have eliminated

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Greylisting was the hangup. For whatever reason other settings changes were being ignored as long as postgrey was in the mix. I removed postgrey and the RBSL configuration I did a few months ago finally started to work. So there was likely something else at play but regardless - I removed

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote: Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If you implement the delay *after*

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Ryan Coleman wrote: Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal” On 29.07.16 10:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was related to Matus

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote: Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > > I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote: > Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the > delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first > connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If you implement the > delay

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, sha...@shanew.net wrote: On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was related to Matus Uhlar's message that concludes with: "if you run SA, there's no point in running greylisting anymore." That could be interpreted to read "if you run SA at all,

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was related to Matus Uhlar's message that concludes with: "if you run SA, there's no point in running greylisting anymore." That could be interpreted to read "if you run SA at all, there's no need for greylisting at all", but I don't

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman: No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation. asshole? just look in your mirror! On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: Doesn’t matter. I killed

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. >> >> I have eliminated postgrey from the installation

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal” in other words you burried a problem by remove something instead fix the reason while on every sane setup greylisting comes

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal” > On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole > wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote: > >> strange... how do you

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote: strange... how do you run spamassassin from postfix? In master.cf like everyone else… Um, not so much... smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -o content_filter=spamassassin [...] spamassassin unix - n n

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: why would anyone wants to first run the most

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Ryan Coleman: On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 22:42 schrieb Ryan Coleman: Someone who has dealt with your attitude over in the MySQL mailing list and would like you to shut up. Your opinion is laden with so much bullshit and pompous holier-than-thouness that I will not honor it. Go away. RTFM of oyur MUA to delete

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Someone who has dealt with your attitude over in the MySQL mailing list and would like you to shut up. Your opinion is laden with so much bullshit and pompous holier-than-thouness that I will not honor it. Go away. > On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: > How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked > there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan > through SpamAssassin? > > I’m watching

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Benny Pedersen: smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_sasl_authenticated defer_unauth_destination why defer relaying? you know what "unauth_destination" means? http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_relay_restrictions

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On 2016-07-19 21:55, Ryan Coleman wrote: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [:::127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 10.50.0.0/16 none wan ips here ? (possible comment that line if unsure what it need to be) if so google "postfix proxy_interface site:postfix.org" postfix need to know your border ip(s)

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 21:54 schrieb Ryan Coleman: Go away. who the hell do you think you are? On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem are supposed to work

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 21:50 schrieb Ryan Coleman: On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email >> checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > using postfix ? > >> Or how do I get it to dump

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Go away. > On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem are > supposed to work together, then you don#t get responses trying to explain you > why your supposed solution for a non existing

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked >> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > you can not - postgrey as a policy

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Ryan Coleman: On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked >> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > why would anyone wants to

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? why would anyone wants to first run the most expensive filter using RBL/URIBL and later greylist a message resulting in

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? you can not - postgrey as a policy service is always run before spamassassin, no matter how it's used. Or how do I get it to dump

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? using postfix ? Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan through SpamAssassin? postgrey is

Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan through SpamAssassin? I’m watching all my log files and emails that are clearing PostGrey are