Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Enabling Postscreen'

Expand Messages
  • Wietse Venema
    ... I suggest you don t change your existing spamblocking features. When postscreen doesn t reject the client as a spambot, there are still many other reasons
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      LuKreme:
      >
      > I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7)
      > and am looking into enabling postscreen. I've read the
      > http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it
      > looks like I should replace my old rbi checks with the new
      > postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but what about some of the other
      > checks?

      I suggest you don't change your existing spamblocking features.

      When postscreen doesn't reject the client as a spambot, there are
      still many other reasons why you would want to reject their mail.

      Wietse
    • LuKreme
      ... Really? What is the advantage of polling the RBL at spamhaus again? And aren t reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname and reject_unlisted_sender redundant
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        In our previous episode (Saturday, 06-Apr-2013), Wietse Venema said:
        > LuKreme:
        >>
        >> I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7)
        >> and am looking into enabling postscreen. I've read the
        >> http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it
        >> looks like I should replace my old rbi checks with the new
        >> postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but what about some of the other
        >> checks?
        >
        > I suggest you don't change your existing spamblocking features.

        Really? What is the advantage of polling the RBL at spamhaus again?

        And aren't reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname and reject_unlisted_sender redundant in smtpd_recipient_restrictions?

        --
        I know you won't believe it's true I only went with her cuz she looked
        like you
      • Wietse Venema
        ... You re not polling it again. The information is cached in the DNS server. And in the case that the DNSBL lookup result came too late for postscreen, it may
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 7, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          LuKreme:
          > In our previous episode (Saturday, 06-Apr-2013), Wietse Venema said:
          > > LuKreme:
          > >>
          > >> I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7)
          > >> and am looking into enabling postscreen. I've read the
          > >> http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it
          > >> looks like I should replace my old rbi checks with the new
          > >> postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but what about some of the other
          > >> checks?
          > >
          > > I suggest you don't change your existing spamblocking features.
          >
          > Really? What is the advantage of polling the RBL at spamhaus again?

          You're not polling it again. The information is cached in the DNS
          server. And in the case that the DNSBL lookup result came too late
          for postscreen, it may still arrive in time for smtpd(8).

          > And aren't reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname and
          > reject_unlisted_sender redundant in smtpd_recipient_restrictions?

          Please RTFM. postscreen doe snot implement every smtpd feature.

          Wietse
        • LuKreme
          ... Ah, yes, I hand t thought of that. ... I honestly did, and I thought those in particular where ones that would be redundant. I will leave it as it is,
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 7, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            In our previous episode (Sunday, 07-Apr-2013), Wietse Venema said:
            > LuKreme:
            >> In our previous episode (Saturday, 06-Apr-2013), Wietse Venema said:
            >>> LuKreme:
            >>>>
            >>>> I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7)
            >>>> and am looking into enabling postscreen. I've read the
            >>>> http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it
            >>>> looks like I should replace my old rbi checks with the new
            >>>> postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but what about some of the other
            >>>> checks?
            >>>
            >>> I suggest you don't change your existing spamblocking features.
            >>
            >> Really? What is the advantage of polling the RBL at spamhaus again?
            >
            > You're not polling it again. The information is cached in the DNS
            > server. And in the case that the DNSBL lookup result came too late
            > for postscreen, it may still arrive in time for smtpd(8).

            Ah, yes, I hand't thought of that.

            >> And aren't reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname and
            >> reject_unlisted_sender redundant in smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
            >
            > Please RTFM. postscreen doe snot implement every smtpd feature.

            I honestly did, and I thought those in particular where ones that would be redundant. I will leave it as it is, thanks.


            --
            A good friend will come and bail you out of jail but a true friend will
            be sitting next to you saying, "Dang, that was fun."
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.