On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
It's clear you either haven't read or haven't understood what Kai wrote,
which btw was spot on.
More attitude. Yeesh. Kai has an opinion. And in fairness, I give his
arguments some serious weight. It's not black-n-white. But this attitude
that he/you
Brian wrote:
I'm glad you like amavis-new. I found it to scale poorly and a single,
common point of failure and fall into the category that is commonly
called 'bloat'. It does illustrate all the missing features of Postfix
in quite a handy example - so thanks for mentioning it.
there's a
* Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com:
package doesn't. For good reasons. We don't want bloatware and we may want
updates on that plugin much more often then we want updates on the MTA. I
really do not want to update my MTA time and again because it's got a new
policy feature. Postfix
On 2010-03-09 13:51, Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good idea -
Here, its totally off topic.
Move it to Postfix
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:24 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
deamon of some kind.
You have a very
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:45 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
So Ralf - author of 'The Postfix Book', can you please now tell me how
to get Postfix to reject mail before it accepts it and gives a 250 -
When Spamassassin tags it as spam?
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that message.
Postfix can do this either via the milter interface OR the
Am 09.03.2010 13:17, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that message.
Postfix
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Brian wrote:
I'm happy to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
I use Mail Avenger for a front end SMTP Says it all
- Charles
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
So Ralf - author of 'The Postfix Book', can you please now tell me how
to get Postfix to reject mail before it accepts it and gives a 250 -
When Spamassassin tags it as spam?
Well, I'm using amavisd-new for that, since I'm also scanning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian wrote:
And the bit where I said 'not using amavis / policy deamon / milter'
escaped you where? For someone that wrote a book you don't seem to read
well ;-)
I want you to shoot that target
*pulls out gun*
Without a gun
*pulls out
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:16 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:20 +, Brian wrote:
Move it to Postfix lists
Better idea, just drop it! Postfix lacks features and it's a fair
statement.
Brian, you just missed your opportunity to do what you propose.
There are enough arse lickers here without going to the Temple of Weiste
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good idea -
Here, its totally off topic.
Move it to Postfix lists
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:53:31 +:
End of thread
Obvbiously not for you. Well.
Thank you so much for educating us clueless people. Thank you and good
night.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:38 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:22:41AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
What exactly *DO* you want??
He's a well known troll here, yet for some reason people want to amuse him
and fill out the list with pointless arguments. PLEASE ignore him, since
noone has taken the job of unsubscribing him
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
deamon of some
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:33 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:22:41AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
What exactly *DO* you want??
He's a well known troll here, yet for some reason people want to amuse him
and fill out the list with pointless arguments. PLEASE ignore
Noel Butler wrote:
He has a point though, and why is it when people don't agree with
someone the troll label comes out, FFS get over your selves. People
always only half read, and then go half cocked, its called life, get
used to it.
In this case the troll label is more of an
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:22 -0800, Bob O'Brien wrote:
Noel Butler wrote:
He has a point though, and why is it when people don't agree with
someone the troll label comes out, FFS get over your selves. People
always only half read, and then go half cocked, its called life, get
used to
just a heads up: I don't know if there is a problem with SA milter, but
there is a snort signature for it now.
Original Message
Subject: [Emerging-Sigs] SIG: SpamAssassin Milter Plugin Remote
Arbitrary Command Injection Attempt
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:03:52 +
From
Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
The key is this:
If spamass-milter is run with the expand flag (-x option) it runs a
popen() including the attacker supplied recipient (RCPT TO).
POC IS
$ nc localhost 25
220 ownthabox ESMTP Postfix (Ubuntu)
mail from: me () me com
250 2.1.0 Ok
rcpt to:
: [Emerging-Sigs] SIG: SpamAssassin Milter Plugin Remote
Arbitrary Command Injection Attempt
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:03:52 +
From: Kevin Ross kevros...@googlemail.com
To:emerging-s...@emergingthreats.net
emerging-s...@emergingthreats.net, Matt Jonkman jonk
That's Postfix 2.3.3 on RHEL5 BTW :-)
$ rpm -q postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2.x86_64
Tell me Ned, how do you get Postfix (2.3.3 on RHEL5) to reject at SMTP
time without using a the milter or something hideous like
Amavis-crashalot? Perhaps if they added some features to that old
dinosaur
Subject: [Emerging-Sigs] SIG: SpamAssassin Milter Plugin Remote
Arbitrary Command Injection Attempt
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:03:52 +
From: Kevin Ross kevros...@googlemail.com
To: emerging-s...@emergingthreats.net
emerging-s...@emergingthreats.net, Matt Jonkman jonk...@jonkmans.com
alert
Brian wrote:
That's Postfix 2.3.3 on RHEL5 BTW :-)
$ rpm -q postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2.x86_64
Tell me Ned, how do you get Postfix (2.3.3 on RHEL5) to reject at SMTP
time without using a the milter or something hideous like
Amavis-crashalot? Perhaps if they added some features to that old
Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
That's Postfix 2.3.3 on RHEL5 BTW :-)
$ rpm -q postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2.x86_64
Tell me Ned, how do you get Postfix (2.3.3 on RHEL5) to reject at SMTP
time without using a the milter or something hideous like
Amavis-crashalot? Perhaps if they added some
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 20:44 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
That's Postfix 2.3.3 on RHEL5 BTW :-)
$ rpm -q postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2.x86_64
Tell me Ned, how do you get Postfix (2.3.3 on RHEL5) to reject at SMTP
time without using a the milter or something hideous like
37 matches
Mail list logo
