Re: P2PWL
2008-09-23 by Adam Katz
... Emmanuel: We are all grateful for milter-greylist. Your devotion to adding new features is a great boon for everybody. I often proudly talk about my use
Messages
Browse messages
Page 52 of 144 · 7199 messages matched
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Brian W. Antoine
... Unless those authorities have demonstrated they can t, or won t, deal with the spam coming out of their server farms. That wasn t the point of my question
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Patrick Domack
... I m attempting to test it, got it compiled, but it s still segfaulting for me on freebsd.
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Brian W. Antoine
... Checking that signature also places a higher load on your mail server, whitelisting their server ranges is a better solution.
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Michael Mansour
Hi Emmanuel, ... I have other tools and systems in place to both automatically and manually report the spam. For example, I setup a specific reporting account
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Emmanuel Dreyfus
... I invite them for diner because I have no social life :-) Seriously, repoting spam activity with RCPT-stage greylisting is a bit difficult, since you never
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Michael Mansour
Hi Brian, ... What exactly do you do with your spam? You should be reporting it to spam authorities so that spammers get their accounts banned and cancelled.
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Michael Mansour
Hi Emmanuel, ... True, but there are very good reasons to verify these signatures via milter-greylist: * blacklist the forged sender addresses that say they
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Christian PELISSIER
... Just that mail comes from gmail. DKIM is another way to skip greylisting, same as SPF or DNSWL, stronger than SPF and just depending from the DNS DKIM
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Brian W. Antoine
... Exactly :)
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Emmanuel Dreyfus
... It proves that the spam you get is from Gmail farms, and therefore that it is pointless to greylist it. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu@netbsd.org
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Brian W. Antoine
... And the fact that gmail/yahoo signs their messages proves what?
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Christian PELISSIER
... All gmail.com (google.com) messages (users and lists) are both signed with DKIM and Domainkey. Some others sign DKIM (some email marketing and newsletters
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Bill Levering
I have a yahoo account I m about to part with. If you need some emails sent I can send them. Bill (also known as yidbill@yahoo.com)
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by manu@netbsd.org
... No problem, it s just a bit disapointing to work on it and have no idea if I can enable it for my own setup (in order to test that, one need to send mail
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by manu@netbsd.org
... I ve been trying it a bit, but I m still looking for the right usage for it. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@netbsd.org
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-23 by Michael Mansour
Hi Emmanuel, ... I m the DKIM culprit (requester) there so if I ve annoyed you I do apologise. I was meaning to assist in testing the DKIM implementation you
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-22 by Greg Troxel
And by the way, I m a bit tired of implementing stuff for which there is no feedback at all (DKIM, p0f)... Not quite true on p0f :-) Certainly you should only
Re: [milter-greylist] has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-22 by manu@netbsd.org
... What is it? And by the way, I m a bit tired of implementing stuff for which there is no feedback at all (DKIM, p0f)... -- Emmanuel Dreyfus
has anybody tried p2pwl (shared auto-whitelists)?
2008-09-22 by Adam Katz
To milter-greylist admins: have you tried p2pwl? is it useful? To milter-greylist developers (manu): does this look worthwhile to implement? given the
logging changes patch
2008-09-22 by Joe Pruett
here is a patch that adds a nolog keyword for acl lines to stop milter-greylist from filling up your syslog. also a logfac config line that lets you set the
Re: [milter-greylist] RFE: enhanced reporting
2008-09-16 by Ondrej Valousek
True. Forget my request ;-) Thanks, Ondrej
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by Greg Troxel
... Yes, I think that would work quite well, and only after trying rules would we be able to figure out any improvements. I have a lot of racls from various
Re: [milter-greylist] RFE: enhanced reporting
2008-09-16 by Emmanuel Dreyfus
... You can use the report clause in your acl to set custom messages. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu@netbsd.org
RFE: enhanced reporting
2008-09-16 by Ondrej Valousek
Hi Emmanuel, Would it be possible to enhance reporting to X-Greylist header so we immediately know how long the message delivery delay has been enforced? I
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by Petar Bogdanovic
... With the feature described above, you could drop spamass-milter and you would still be able to racl the most badboys through DNSBLs before doing a full
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by Greg Troxel
spamdsock /var/run/spamd.sock dacl greylist spamd-score 5 delay 6h dacl greylist spamd-score 10 delay 12h dacl greylist spamd-score 15 delay 24h
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by Constantine A. Murenin
... FYI: milter-greylist expires unsuccessful entries in not in timeout time, but in delay + timeout time (and timeout is only a global setting). Hence
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by manu@netbsd.org
... Following-up myself: I just need to be convinced it is useful to start implementing it. If someone else contribute a patch for that, I ll be glad to
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-16 by manu@netbsd.org
... That s cute. If you think you are going to convince me that way, you are not wrong! :-) -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@netbsd.org
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-15 by Petar Bogdanovic
... That s the advantage of conditional greylisting: A non-human content inspector -- like a public DNSBL -- can always be wrong, so just greylisting the
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-15 by shuttlebox
... But if you identify it as spam with your additional methods , don t you want to blacklist it then? What s the point to greylist (ask them to resend) if
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-15 by Manuel Badzong
... At the data stage you could use various additional spam identifying methods besides ip, sender and recipient. ... That s the nature of data stage acl s.
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-15 by Akos Szalkai
... But what s the use for greylisting after the data stage? Why not only accept or refuse (and perhaps temporarily black/whitelist the triplet)? After the
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-14 by Manuel Badzong
... At present the greylist contains one record per recipient. I think this behaviour would not need to change. ... Yes, per recipient. No need to change here
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-14 by manu@netbsd.org
... Well, the biggest difficulty is to define the proprer behavior: What should we store in the greylist for a multiple-recipient message? Would another
Re: [milter-greylist] dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-13 by Benoit Branciard
... Because at this point all the RCPT TO: commands have already been accepted, so your only choice is to accept or reject the message as a whole, and not on
dacl greylist (...)
2008-09-13 by Petar Bogdanovic
Hi, man greylist.conf states the following about data stage acls: DATA-STAGE ACL (...) DATA-stage ACL cannot use the greylist action (...) Returning 451 should
Re: [milter-greylist] Re: garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-13 by Benoit Branciard
... I don t thing it s a bug: leaving the leading = is a handy way to display in the log that the address has been truncated. From my point of view, you
Re: [milter-greylist] Re: garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-12 by manu@netbsd.org
... It s just an off-by-one display bug. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@netbsd.org
Re: garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-12 by szalkai2
... Please don t remove this, it is a very useful feature. Without this, many mailing lists will never get auto-whitelisted, because they use VERP. With
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-12 by manu@netbsd.org
... So what about this? if ((idx = rindex(tmpfrom, = )) != NULL) idx++; else idx = tmpfrom; -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@netbsd.org
Re: [milter-greylist] compiling on freebsd
2008-09-12 by Oliver Fromme
... Note that 6.2 is not supported by the FreeBSD security team anymore, and it contains several bugs that are not fixed (there are at least four advisories,
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-12 by Petar Bogdanovic
... Erm, maybe it s too early and I don t see what you see, but this actually is the problem. I did a quick test with: - if ((idx = rindex(tmpfrom, = )) ==
Re: [milter-greylist] compiling on freebsd
2008-09-12 by manu@netbsd.org
... Would you contribute a fix? I don t have a FreeBSD box, so I cannot test it. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@netbsd.org
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-12 by manu@netbsd.org
... That chunk of code could be the culprit, in milter-greylist.c. However, I have trouble to see where it could be wrong. /* * Strip anything before the last
compiling on freebsd
2008-09-12 by Patrick Domack
I finally got the cvs version to compile (now I remember why I gave up awhile ago doing this) the configure script tests for libmilter, but pthread isn t
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-11 by Benoit Branciard
... I noticed this for a very long time (also in older versions of milter-greylist), but I never suspected it was a bug, I thought it was a feature intended to
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-11 by Petar Bogdanovic
... It only happens when the envelope from contains a `= : (...) from==smokva.net@NetBSD.org , rcpt= (...) (...)
Re: [milter-greylist] garbled envelope-from in milter-greylist 4.0.1
2008-09-11 by manu@netbsd.org
... Does it happens randomly, or is it on each message? I have never seen such a problem. Perhaps it s Postfix specific? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus