Per Jessen skrev den 2013-02-06 08:37:
For me that creates too much traffic, unfortunately.
use spf test before reject_unverified_sender reduce this problem here
was the plan not to get it up again ?
See the other postings about http://www.rfc-ignorant.de/ - someone is
working on it.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-04 09:25:
port 25 open. There are multiple ways to detect dynamic IPs (rDNS
patterns,
PBL, SORBS-DUL, MAPS-DYNA) which I found more safe than TCP port 25
open.
On 04.02.13 17:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i never write only but my point is that if port 25
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-04 09:25:
port 25 open. There are multiple ways to detect dynamic IPs (rDNS
patterns,
PBL, SORBS-DUL, MAPS-DYNA) which I found more safe than TCP port 25
open.
On 04.02.13 17:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i never write only but
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
This is what e.g. rfci-ignorant or many other rhsbl blacklists are
for.
rfc-ignorant has gone off-line.
http://www.rfc-ignorant.de/
-- Matthias
Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
This is what e.g. rfci-ignorant or many other rhsbl blacklists are
for.
rfc-ignorant has gone off-line.
http://www.rfc-ignorant.de/
-- Matthias
Thanks, I didn't know someone had decided
On 2/5/2013 6:22 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.de/
-- Matthias
Thanks, I didn't know someone had decided to continue the project. I
suggested it on the rfc-ignorant mailing list but there wasn't much
interest.
Interesting and good news!... but their home page states
Per Jessen skrev den 2013-02-05 08:27:
rfc-ignorant has gone off-line.
thats why i choiced to use reject_unverified_sender in postfix, and yes
i know it can be abused, but it solves more problems then it creates for
me
was the plan not to get it up again ?
Matthias Leisi skrev den 2013-02-05 10:43:
rfc-ignorant has gone off-line.
http://www.rfc-ignorant.de/
will it not be added to spamassassin rules ?
is the old rules still in rules out there ?
i have not followed progress on that, have being away from maillist for
long time now
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Per Jessen skrev den 2013-02-05 08:27:
rfc-ignorant has gone off-line.
thats why i choiced to use reject_unverified_sender in postfix, and
yes i know it can be abused, but it solves more problems then it
creates for me
For me that creates too much traffic,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-03 20:41:
only whitelist dynamic ips if there is port 25 open on it,
so any open relay and SMTP redirect gets whitelisted?
On 04.02.13 00:55, Benny Pedersen wrote:
nope, if port 25 is open, its another problem, in the way that is
could be static ip,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-04 09:25:
port 25 open. There are multiple ways to detect dynamic IPs (rDNS
patterns,
PBL, SORBS-DUL, MAPS-DYNA) which I found more safe than TCP port 25
open.
i never write only but my point is that if port 25 is open, is it
then still dynamic ?
i
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-03 20:41:
only whitelist dynamic ips if there is port 25 open on it,
so any open relay and SMTP redirect gets whitelisted?
On 04.02.13 00:55, Benny Pedersen wrote:
nope, if port 25 is open, its another problem, in the way
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2013-01-26 08:22:
as wrote, there is always a chance to whitelist something, but big
mailplayers dont do it or cant do by tec reasons
i.e if your sednded mail is comming from dynips it makes less sense
dynip should NOT be used for mail sending (without SMTP auth)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-02-03 20:41:
only whitelist dynamic ips if there is port 25 open on it,
so any open relay and SMTP redirect gets whitelisted?
nope, if port 25 is open, its another problem, in the way that is could
be static ip, with a dynamic hostname / reverse dns,
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2013-01-26 08:22:
as wrote, there is always a chance to whitelist something, but big
mailplayers dont do it or cant do by tec reasons
i.e if your sednded mail is comming from dynips it makes less sense
to
whitelist them, some stuff is more easy fixed at the sender
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2013-01-26 08:26:
there is less you can do, if your mail provider does not give you
chance
to change antispam settings yourself i.e. in some gui
and/or he is not willing to change it for you
i begin to wonder how gmail handle it :=)
.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Whitelist-and-DNS-blacklists-in-SpamAssassin-tp103262.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Whitelist-and-DNS-blacklists-in-SpamAssassin-tp103262.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Normally the answer would be no. This depends on how your mail provider
is using the dns blacklists
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, mario21 wrote:
Thank you for your replies guys. The emails are blocked by my mail provider
(ISP is different from my mail provider). I already tried to contact him but
I would like to know more... He told me that DNS blacklists have higher
priority and he can't do anything
mario21 skrev den 2013-01-25 21:53:
Thank you for your replies guys. The emails are blocked by my mail
provider
(ISP is different from my mail provider). I already tried to contact
him but
I would like to know more... He told me that DNS blacklists have
higher
priority and he can't do anything
.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Whitelist-and-DNS-blacklists-in-SpamAssassin-tp103262p103271.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, mario21 wrote:
Yes Ted, I was thinking about the same but I'm afraid about more spam...
Benny - blocked is IP address (usually whole range of IP addresses). My
client uses a mail provider whose almost all IP addresses are very often
blacklisted (I checked it via
dont do it or cant do by tec reasons
i.e if your sednded mail is comming from dynips it makes less sense to
whitelist them, some stuff is more easy fixed at the sender i.e sending
via relay etc
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Whitelist-and-DNS
Am 25.01.2013 23:57, schrieb mario21:
but I would like to resolve it on my side if it's
possible...
there is less you can do, if your mail provider does not give you chance
to change antispam settings yourself i.e. in some gui
and/or he is not willing to change it for you
Best Regards
MfG
24 matches
Mail list logo
