James Ralston wrote:
> For recent versions of sendmail, you can use the spamfriend/spamhater
> hooks in the accessdb to implement either one of these policies:
>
> 1. Incoming mail from RBL-listed sites is rejected, except for
> spamfriend users.
>
> 2. Incoming mail from RBL-l
--On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:42 PM -0400 James Ralston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For recent versions of sendmail, you can use the spamfriend/spamhater
> hooks in the accessdb to implement either one of these policies:
>
> 1. Incoming mail from RBL-listed sites is rejected, except for
>
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Scott Lamb wrote:
> Scott M Likens wrote:
>
> > This is quite Sickening, RBL is a MTA implementation not needed to
> > be done via Sieve, and as for spamassasin you can always write
> > decent header checks and body checks for postfix to use. I am
> > sure there is the same
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 17:48, Scott M Likens wrote:
> --On Friday, April 26, 2002 1:25 PM -0700 julesa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From a technical/efficiency standpoint, sieve should not have to check
> > an external source of information before delivering a message. Inserting
> > a header, and
--On Friday, April 26, 2002 1:25 PM -0700 julesa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Valid points have been brought up on all sides. Just adding my $0.02:
>
> From an administrative standpoint, it is *not* all right to lose
> potentially legitimate mail without notifying the sender, unless every
> user
Valid points have been brought up on all sides. Just adding my $0.02:
>From an administrative standpoint, it is *not* all right to lose
potentially legitimate mail without notifying the sender, unless every
user on your system has been made FULLY aware of the risk and agrees
with the policy. That
--On Friday, April 26, 2002 9:56 AM +0200 Luca Olivetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well, that's you. Maybe your users don't agree. Maybe they don't even
> *know* that they are losing *legitimate* email if you use some careless
> rbl blackole (like the maps llc service -- I know, I've been bla
--On Friday, April 26, 2002 1:13 AM -0500 Scott Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> You feel it's acceptable to occasionally lose important mail to
> heuristics. I feel otherwise. This really reinforces my belief that
> per-user UCE rules are important. Now, if you know of a good way to
> accomp
--On Friday, April 26, 2002 9:19 AM +0100 simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (just adding my red diesel )
>
>
> Doesn't RBL check the IP address that people connect with ?
> Now as a SMTP server you have this implicitly , later on
> it would have to be taken from the headers, to find the ip.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:27:10 -0500
Scott Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott M Likens wrote:
>
> > This is quite Sickening, RBL is a MTA implementation not needed to be
> > done via Sieve, and as for spamassasin you can always write decent
> > header checks and body checks for postfix to u
(just adding my red diesel )
Doesn't RBL check the IP address that people connect with ?
Now as a SMTP server you have this implicitly , later on
it would have to be taken from the headers, to find the ip.
Possible bit of a pain, just need to find the received header
your machine on... Definit
damm wrote:
> Because it should belong in the MTA for many reasons. The basic reason is i know
>personally
> from getting spam daily, i dont want the X-RBL-Warning, i want it JUST GONE!
Well, that's you. Maybe your users don't agree. Maybe they don't even *know* that they
are losing *legitim
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:23:56PM +0800, damm wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:27:10PM -0500, Scott Lamb wrote:
>
> > Scott M Likens wrote:
> >
> > If you have some idea how I could accomplish my stated goals on the MTA
> > side, please share. I've given my reasons for this approach. Why do
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:27:10PM -0500, Scott Lamb wrote:
> Scott M Likens wrote:
>
> If you have some idea how I could accomplish my stated goals on the MTA
> side, please share. I've given my reasons for this approach. Why do you
> feel so strongly that this belongs in the MTA?
Because it
Scott Lamb schrieb am Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:27:10PM -0500:
> Scott M Likens wrote:
>
> >This is quite Sickening, RBL is a MTA implementation not needed to be
> >done via Sieve, and as for spamassasin you can always write decent
> >header checks and body checks for postfix to use. I am sure t
Scott M Likens wrote:
> This is quite Sickening, RBL is a MTA implementation not needed to be
> done via Sieve, and as for spamassasin you can always write decent
> header checks and body checks for postfix to use. I am sure there is
> the same option in sendmail.
If you have some idea how
Now i know i RARELY ever post messages but i'll be quite honest.
This is quite Sickening, RBL is a MTA implementation not needed to be done
via Sieve, and as for spamassasin you can always write decent header checks
and body checks for postfix to use. I am sure there is the same option in
sen
17 matches
Mail list logo
