On 7/20/2010 1:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It is the other guy who is arguing that
spamfiltering outbound mail is better than port 25
On 7/22/2010 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances
of
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
show logs
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not fqdn before it bounce :)
--
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some
instances of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
and why not show logs ?
bounces is newer
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix would
have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances of SPF
fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
On 7/22/2010 11:03 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances
of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
Thanks Ted for that example i could not have wrote in english myself.
Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 13:23 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a
On 20.07.10 00:48, RW wrote:
I was asking what's the point of adding headers or markup that *is*
seen by the recipient.
On 7/20/2010 4:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I think Brian understood youre question as disagreement :)
I think there's no logical point. In case of FP you are
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 18:56 -0600, LuKreme a écrit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 18:07, Alexandre Chapellon alexandre.chapel...@mana.pf
wrote:
Bouncing spam?? What a good way to become a backscatter source (in
addition to spam)!
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going
to call
On 7/19/2010 3:55 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 2:25 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few
On 7/20/2010 4:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or
You argue about the fficiency of blicking network flow like we do
But beyond argue they are simples facts:
Before I introduce port 25 blocking I had more than 200 feedback loop
complaints daily from differents MSP (Yahoo, AOL, abusix and others).
Since blocking is enabled it I have have less
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It is the other guy who is arguing that
spamfiltering outbound mail is better than port 25 blocks.
Ted
On 7/20/2010 11:46 AM, Alexandre
Sorry it was not directly for you, but more like a general post.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 12:01 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
thinks is spam - and if you do that your going to get shot by your users
over the FPs.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a écrit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
thinks is spam - and if you
On Jul 20, 2010, at 18:07, Alexandre Chapellon alexandre.chapel...@mana.pf
wrote:
Bouncing spam?? What a good way to become a backscatter source (in
addition to spam)!
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to bounce
internal messages.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 ?? 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a ??crit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, LuKreme wrote:
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to
bounce internal messages.
Caveat: As long as proper care is taken to send the bounce to the
authenticated sender of the mail and NOT just lamely use the 'From'
header! Still prefer an
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really afraid of doing so and didn't really
Hi,
On Mon, 19.07.2010 at 09:43:20 -0600, Brian Godette bgode...@idcomm.com wrote:
I hope you realize you still need to deal with the issues of users
with weak/guessable passwords and phishing of account info as well
as the newer bots that recover account info from Outlook/Outlook
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to Block
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a
good idea (Thread: SA on
Blocking outbound 25 from the rest of your network, and disallowing
submission to your MX on 25 from your network
, does very little for keeping your own MX from sending spam which is what SA
on outgoing SMTP would be for.
It's great from a policy standpoint and contains the simple bots, but
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a lot
more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going to
call you and
On 7/19/2010 2:25 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on
On 7/19/2010 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a lot
more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:58:49 -0600
Brian Godette bgode...@idcomm.com wrote:
On 7/19/2010 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a good
idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to Block direct port 25 for non-mta users!
I was really afraid of doing so and didn't really wanted to go this
way.
now about 6 months later I have to
Great!
1 down, 19,587,294,872,875 more admins to go! ;-)
Ted
On 7/15/2010 5:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few months ago I asked this list if using SA on outgoing smtp was a good
idea (Thread: SA on outgoing SMTP).
This thread quickly moved to Block direct port 25 for non-mta
34 matches
Mail list logo
