On 8/25/06, kashani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Preston Hagar wrote:> Using postgrey on> my own personal server, I make it delay for 5 minutes. Most mail> servers will keep trying and I will get the message within 10-15 minutes> max. I have had a few times, though, that the mail took 4 or 5 hours
Preston Hagar wrote:
Using postgrey on
my own personal server, I make it delay for 5 minutes. Most mail
servers will keep trying and I will get the message within 10-15 minutes
max. I have had a few times, though, that the mail took 4 or 5 hours
before it was tried again.
hotmail will re
I think the thing you have to keep in mind is how strict you want to be. I am in control of mail servers for three different "organizations", my personal email, my consulting side business, and the real estate company I work full time for. Each one has a varying degree of how acceptable false pos
Grant wrote:
I'd be careful with non_fqdn_hostname
What's wrong with that? Here's how the postfix docs describe it:
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname (with Postfix < 2.3:
reject_non_fqdn_hostname)
Reject the request when the HELO or EHLO hostname is not in
fully-qualified domain form, as requir
> Do you think this postfix anti-spam configuration is OK:
>
> smtpd_delay_reject = yes
> smtpd_helo_required = yes
> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
>permit_mynetworks,
>reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
>reject_invalid_hostname,
>permit
I'd be careful with non_fqdn_hostname
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:42:07 -0700, kashani wrote:
> I'd be careful with non_fqdn_hostname
Why?
--
Neil Bothwick
"I'm Not Sure If I'm Homosexual", Said Tom, Half In Earnest.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Grant wrote:
Do you think this postfix anti-spam configuration is OK:
smtpd_delay_reject = yes
smtpd_helo_required = yes
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
reject_invalid_hostname,
permit
I'd be careful with non_fqdn_hostname
sm
> Would it be OK to remove the following aliases since I never use them:
>
> # Well-known aliases -- these should be filled in!
> root: grant
> operator: grant
>
> # Standard RFC2142 aliases
> abuse: grant
> ftp:grant
> hostmaster: grant
> news:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:28:16 -0700
Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be OK to remove the following aliases since I never use them:
>
> # Well-known aliases -- these should be filled in!
> root: grant
> operator: grant
>
> # Standard RFC2142 aliases
> abuse:
> Do you think the reject_rbl_client stuff is safer than greylisting?
>
> - Grant
1. Blacklists have the HIGHEST false positive rate of any anti-spam
technique other than sending all mail to /dev/null. 34%
http://www.paulgraham.com/falsepositives.html
2. Blacklists block the least amount of spam
> Do you think the reject_rbl_client stuff is safer than greylisting?
>
> - Grant
1. Blacklists have the HIGHEST false positive rate of any anti-spam
technique other than sending all mail to /dev/null. 34%
http://www.paulgraham.com/falsepositives.html
2. Blacklists block the least amount of spam
Grant wrote:
Do you think the reject_rbl_client stuff is safer than greylisting?
- Grant
1. Blacklists have the HIGHEST false positive rate of any anti-spam
technique other than sending all mail to /dev/null. 34%
http://www.paulgraham.com/falsepositives.html
2. Blacklists block the least am
I've followed the steps outlined here to eliminate spam up to the
section on "SPF and greylisting" on the second page:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/focus_spam_postfix/
The author is really into greylisting:
"If you take nothing else from this article, let it be that
greylisting
13 matches
Mail list logo
