search for: blowback

..."reject"; if header :contains "subject" "reject" { reject "bye"; } Is there any way to get a "reject" filter to send back a 550 reject as detailed in http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/rfc5429/#section-2.5 rather than a MDN? The MDN can result in blowback spam. :-( Thanks, Ken -- Ken Anderson Pacific Internet - http://www.pacific.net

On Fri, February 13, 2015 11:04 am, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ken Smith <kens at kensnet.org> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm just wanting to check that my understanding of the settings is >> correct >> as my web searches are finding a lot of dated information. >> >> If I want a Centos 6 sendmail system act as the

...ould be kind of hard to do right. You'd have to keep the > known-good senders in sync across the receivers. But my bigger worry > would be a dictionary-type attack on user names as recipients if you > don't have access to the real user list on the secondary. Aside from > the blowback of the bounces, if you've ever accepted an address it is > likely to get on lists of known-good spam and cause extra traffic > forever after. > In this case the secondary MX has the same RBL's etc etc as the primary. I do see the spammers sending their junk to the secondary more t...

...tles. Greylisting would be kind of hard to do right. You'd have to keep the known-good senders in sync across the receivers. But my bigger worry would be a dictionary-type attack on user names as recipients if you don't have access to the real user list on the secondary. Aside from the blowback of the bounces, if you've ever accepted an address it is likely to get on lists of known-good spam and cause extra traffic forever after. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

Hi Scooter, On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 12:07 -0800, Scott Michel wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: > > This is an libpath problem. When xgcc runs it wants to dynamically linkthe libgcc.so. > > When you run it from the command line it will find yoursystem > libgcc.so (which works) > > Not really. For systems that have gcc 4.2 natively installed, like the > current Debian

...hard to do right. You'd have to keep the >> known-good senders in sync across the receivers. But my bigger worry >> would be a dictionary-type attack on user names as recipients if you >> don't have access to the real user list on the secondary. Aside from >> the blowback of the bounces, if you've ever accepted an address it is >> likely to get on lists of known-good spam and cause extra traffic >> forever after. >> > In this case the secondary MX has the same RBL's etc etc as the primary. > I do see the spammers sending their junk to...

Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but other than that, is there a good reason why a mailserver would not be configured to send delivery failure to *both* Reply-To and From? mark

...X (so your backup MX does accept mail for newly added users to primary MX). But having backup MX receiving everything is wrong configuration prone to backscatter - at least I see we agree on that. So, just don't roll out badly configured backup MX, I would say. Valeri > Aside from > the blowback of the bounces, if you've ever accepted an address it is > likely to get on lists of known-good spam and cause extra traffic > forever after. > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list...

I HAVE 10 Years EXPERIENCE WITH *ORACLE 7.x 8.x, and 9x DATABASE Administration *ORACLE 9iAS Support *11i/10.7 ERP/CRM Installation and Support *SOLARIS SYSTEM ADMIN *3rd PARTY IMPLEMENTIONS * DATAWAREHOUSING Support *SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE CAPACITY PLANNING *Oracle DATABASE MANAGEMENT *Oracle DATABASE AND APPLICATION TUNING Spent many years at Oracle Corp, and worked with client such as Kodak,