Search Results

Search found 2201 results on 89 pages for 'anti spam'.

Page 11/89 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • How anti-virus on the host machne affects performance of virtual machines?

    - by Ladislav Mrnka
    I'm diagnosing some issue with Oracle virtual box where virtual machine sometimes perform terribly slow (much slower then notebook with worse configuration): Notebook i7 (2 cores with HT = 4 logical CPUs), 4GB RAM, 5400 rpm disk, Win 7 64bit Virtual machine (Oracle Virtual Box) Host: i7 (4 cores with HT = 8 logical CPUs, 12 GB RAM, system runs from SSD, virtual machine from 7200 rpm disk, Win 7 64bit) Virtual machine: 4 cores assigned, 8 GB RAM assigned, Win 2008 R2 Enterprise (64 bit) Virtual machine uses bridge to separate network interface (machine has two) VPN for network communication No other virtual machine runs on the host Host has installed ESET Smart Security All SW is updated with last version. My question is if anti-virus on the host machine can somehow affect performance of the virtual machine and if so how can I turn it off without turning the anti-virus itself?

    Read the article

  • Which steps are required to avoid my server being considered as spam sender?

    - by Cyril N.
    I'm looking to set up a webmail server that will be used by a lots of users that will receive and send emails. They will also have the possibility to forward emails they receive. I'd like to know which steps are recommanded/required to indicate to others Mail services (GMail, Outlook, etc) that my server is not used as a spam sender (disclaimer : IT's NOT ! :p) but a legitimate one. I know I have to define a SPF TXT records for example, but what others steps would you recommend me to do ? For example, is there a formula like having a proportional number of servers based on the amount of email sent (for having a different IP address) ? (something like sending a maximum of 1M emails / per IP / per day ?) Something else I'm missing ? I tried to search online, but I mostly find how to avoid emails sent with scripts (like PHP) being put in the SPAM folder. I'm looking for a server/dns configuration side. Thanks a lot for your help/tips, I appreciate !

    Read the article

  • Blocking a distributed, consistent spam attack? Could it be something more serious?

    - by mattmcmanus
    I will do my best to try and explain this as it's strange and confusing to me. I posted a little while ago about a sustained spike in mysql queries on a VPS I had recently setup. It turned out to be a single post on a site I was developmenting. The post had over 30,000 spam comments! Since the site was one I was slowly building I hadn't configured the anti-spam comment software yet. I've since deleted the particular post which has given the server a break but the post's url keeps on getting hit. The frustrating thing is every hit is from a different IP. How do I even start to block/prevent this? Is this even something I need to worry about? Here are some more specific details about my setup, just to give some context: Ubuntu 8.10 server with ufw setup The site I'm building is in Drupal which now has Mollom setup for spam control. It wasn't configured before. The requests happen inconsistently. Sometimes it's every couple seconds and other times it's a an or so between hits. However it's been going on pretty much constantly like that for over a week. Here is a sample of my apache access log from the last 15 minutes just for the page in question: dev.domain-name.com:80 97.87.97.169 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:47:40 +0000] "POST http://dev.domain-name.com/comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 202.149.24.193 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:50:37 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 193.106.92.77 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:50:39 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 194.85.136.187 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:52:03 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 220.255.7.13 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:52:14 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 195.70.55.151 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:53:41 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 71.91.4.31 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:56:07 +0000] "POST http://dev.domain-name.com/comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 98.209.203.170 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:56:10 +0000] "POST http://dev.domain-name.com/comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 24.255.137.159 - - [28/Mar/2010:06:56:19 +0000] "POST http://dev.domain-name.com/comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 77.242.20.18 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:00:15 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 94.75.215.42 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:01:34 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.0" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 89.115.2.128 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:03:20 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 75.65.230.252 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:05:05 +0000] "POST http://dev.domain-name.com/comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 206.251.255.61 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:06:46 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.0" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" dev.domain-name.com:80 213.194.120.14 - - [28/Mar/2010:07:07:22 +0000] "POST /comment/reply/3 HTTP/1.1" 404 5895 "http://dev.domain-name.com/blog/2009/11/23/another" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)" I understand this is an open ended question, but any help or insight you could give would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How do I set up an email server that automatically maintains a list of previous recipients?

    - by hsivonen
    I want to set up an email server with the following characteristics. What software (besides bogofilter and clamav that I'm naming) should I use and what HOWTOs should I read? The server should run some flavor of Linux that's as low-maintenance as possible and self-updates for security patches in a timely fashion. (Debian stable?) When email is sent, all the recipients are stored in the list of previous recipients maintained by the server. Scan incoming messages with clamav and treat as spam if it contains viruses. When email arrives (if it passed clamav), if the sender is on the list of previous recipients, bypass spam filter. If the List-Id header names a mailing list on a manually maintained list of known-clean mailing lists, bypass spam filter and deliver into a mailbox depending on the mailing list name. Email that wasn't from previous recipients, manually white listed domains or mailing lists gets filtered by bogofilter. Spam goes into a spam mailbox. Email considered to be ham should automatically be fed to bogofilter training as ham. Email considered to be spam (incl. messages with viruses) should be automatically fed to bogofilter training as spam. There should be mailboxes for false ham and false spam that an IMAP client can move email into so that the server retrains bogofilter appropriately. Email sending requires SMTP over SSL. Email reading requires IMAPS. Should I also want to use SpamAssassin in addition to bogofilter?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 sort en version RTM avec un nouveau moteur anti-malwares

    Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 sort en version RTM Pour les constructeurs et les revendeurs, elle embarque un nouveau moteur anti-malwares Microsoft vient d'annoncer la disponibilité pour les constructeurs et revendeurs (version RTM) de Forefront Endpoint Security 2010, sa solution d'administration unifiée pour la protection contre les malwares pour les serveurs et les postes de travail des entreprises. En Release Candidate depuis novembre, cette version s'appuie sur « System Center Configuration Manager 2007 », facilitant ainsi le déploiement au niveau des entreprises ayant déjà mis en place des infrastructures de gestion des postes clients de Microsoft. Fore...

    Read the article

  • Anti-Spamming Technique By Google

    Blog spamming or comment spam is one of the many issues pertaining to the use of SEO or search engine optimization. It is a form of spamdexing which involves posting random comments or promoting comm... [Author: Margarette Mcbride - Web Design and Development - May 03, 2010]

    Read the article

  • How can people still be getting spam from a hotmail account that's been closed?

    - by Marplesoft
    My wife had an old hotmail account which she recently closed. Some people that she used to communicate with from that account have recently been receiving spam emails from this account. I don't see how this is possible because the account is closed. I considered that maybe the email address is being spoofed, is there a way I can tell from looking at the email headers or something? Or should I take this up with hotmail?

    Read the article

  • Why some "non-profit" hoax and spam are created? [closed]

    - by naxa
    Many spam/hoax has no direct link to any ripoff site or similar, they're just making sure people spread them ("forward this to at least 10 people or else"). Some of those may be created out of good faith, I'm not interested in those... But the rest, I since long suspect that there is some other reason for making them other than making fun of people (without getting much of the feedback)... Why are these created?

    Read the article

  • phpBB - Reducing Spam

    - by user44175
    I've installed phpBB Forums last week and the past 2 days I've been getting users sign up and posting spam chinese emails on each topic. I have:- Added captcha on registration Made sure users have to verify subscription by email before allowing to post What else can I do to stop this from happening? I've banned their IP addresses but this doesn't stop them from using a proxy to keep spamming the forums. I've read I can block all chinese IP addresses through ACP but is this the best step to block all this? Seems to be all chinese spam at the minute, any help would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Are there any well known anti-patterns in the field of system administration?

    - by ojblass
    I know a few common patterns that seem to bedevil nearly every project at some point in its life cycle: Inability to take outages Third party components locking out upgrades Non uniform environments Lack of monitoring and alerting Missing redundancy Lack of Capacity Poor Change Management Too liberal or tight access policies Organizational changes adversely blur infrastructure ownership I was hoping there is some well articulated library of these anti-patterns summarized in a book or web site. I am almost positive that many organizations are learning through trial by fire methods. If not let's start one.

    Read the article

  • Nanoservices anti-pattern pdf version

    The formatting on the html version of the nano-services is a bit off (Word to HTML is so much fun) so I am also making it available as PDF.if you don’t rememberNonoservice is an Anti-pattern where a service is too fine grained. Nanoservice is a service whose overhead (communications, maintenance etc.) out-weights its utility.* illustration [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Nanoservices anti-pattern pdf version

    The formatting on the html version of the nano-services is a bit off (Word to HTML is so much fun) so I am also making it available as PDF.if you don’t rememberNonoservice is an Anti-pattern where a service is too fine grained. Nanoservice is a service whose overhead (communications, maintenance etc.) out-weights its utility.* illustration [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the number of spammers registering with my phpBB site?

    - by Jayapal Chandran
    I have a site which runs phpBB, on this site I have enabled user authentication through email when registering enabled captcha However I still get spam users every 20 to 30 minutes. Is there anything I can do to prevent this with the ucp.php file? I have already loaded a large list of IP addresses yet there are spam users registering all the time. One thing I can do is I can check the bounce mail to find the username and can pipe bounced mails to a php script and immediately delete that user, but I have not got any bounce back from hotmail or some other email clients. So this way it will catch hold of a certain percent of spam users but there are still a huge amount of users spamming. What else can I do to prevent spammers abusing my phpBB site?

    Read the article

  • Apple soupçonné d'anti-compétitivité avec sa régie publicitaire iAd, une investigation d'antitrust p

    Mise à jour du 14.06.2010 par Katleen Apple soupçonné d'anti-compétitivité avec sa régie publicitaire iAd, une investigation d'antitrust pourrait bientôt être lancée D'après le très sérieux Financial Times, Apple pourrait écoper très bientôt d'une enquête pour Antitrust, afin de déterminer si l'iAd serait trop préjudiciable à des sociétés comme Microsoft ou Google au niveau de la publicité sur iPhone et iPad. Les régulateurs américains s'interessent de près aux agissements de la firme à la pomme. On ne sait pas encore qui de la Federal Trade Commission ou de l'U.S. Department of Justice investiguera l'affaire. Les nouvelles conditions d'utilisation du service pour les développeurs ajo...

    Read the article

  • does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

    - by Michael Riva
    I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

    Read the article

  • Scuttlebutt Reconciliation in the paper “Efficient Reconciliation and Flow Control for Anti-Entropy Protocols”

    - by soulmachine
    I am reading the paper "Efficient Reconciliation and Flow Control for Anti-Entropy Protocols"! , I couldn't clearly understand Section 3.2 "Scuttlebutt Reconciliation". Here I extract out some sentences from the paper, which especially confuse me. If gossip messages were unlimited in size, then the sets contains the exact differences,just like with precise reconciliation. Scuttlebutt requires that if a certain delta (r; k; v; n) is omitted, then all the deltas with higher version numbers for the same r should be omitted as well. Scuttlebutt satises the global invariant C(p;q) for any two processes p and q:

    Read the article

  • How to test email spam scores with amavis?

    - by CaptSaltyJack
    I'd like a way to test a spam message to see its spam scores that SpamAssassin gives it. The SA db files (bayes_toks, etc) reside in /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin. I've been testing emails by doing this: sudo su amavis -c 'spamassassin -t msgfile' Though this yields some strange results, such as: Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP 0.0 LONG_TERM_PRICE BODY: LONG_TERM_PRICE 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% [score: 1.0000] -0.0 NO_RECEIVED Informational: message has no Received headers 0.2 is an awfully low scores for BAYES_999! But this is the first time I've used amavis, previously I've always just used spamassassin directly as a content filter in postfix, but apparently running amavis/spamassassin is more efficient. So, with amavis in the picture, how can I run a test on a message to see its spam score breakdown? Another email I ran a test on got this result: 2.0 BAYES_80 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 80 to 95% [score: 0.8487] Doesn't make sense, that BAYES_80 can yield a higher score than BAYES_999. Help!

    Read the article

  • Server being used to send spam mail. How do I investigate?

    - by split_account
    Problem I think my server is being used to send spam with sendmail, I'm getting a lot of mail being queued up that I don't recognize and my mail.log and syslog are getting huge. I've shutdown sendmail, so none of it is getting out but I can't work out where it's coming from. Investigation so far: I've tried the solution in the blog post below and also shown in this thread. It's meant to add a header from wherever the mail is being added and log all all mail to file, so I changed the following lines in my php.ini file: mail.add_x_header = On mail.log = /var/log/phpmail.log But nothing is appearing in the phpmail.log. I used the command here to investigate cron jobs for all users, but nothing is out of place. The only cron being run is the cron for the website. And then I brought up all php files which had been modified in the last 30 days but none of them look suspicious. What else can I do to find where this is coming from? Mail.log reports Turned sendmail back on for second. Here is a small sample of the reports: Jun 10 14:40:30 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13684]: s5ADeQdp013684: from=<>, size=2431, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<[email protected]>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA-v4, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1] Jun 10 14:40:30 ubuntu12 sm-msp-queue[13674]: s5ACK1cC011438: to=www-data, delay=01:20:14, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=571670, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (s5ADeQdp013684 Message accepted for delivery) Jun 10 14:40:30 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13719]: s5ADeQdp013684: to=<[email protected]>, delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=local, pri=32683, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent Jun 10 14:40:30 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13684]: s5ADeQdr013684: from=<[email protected]>, size=677, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<[email protected]>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA-v4, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1] Jun 10 14:40:31 ubuntu12 sm-msp-queue[13674]: s5AC0gpi011125: to=www-data, ctladdr=www-data (33/33), delay=01:39:49, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=relay, pri=660349, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (s5ADeQdr013684 Message accepted for delivery) Jun 10 14:40:31 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13721]: s5ADeQdr013684: to=<[email protected]>, ctladdr=<[email protected]> (33/33), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=local, pri=30946, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent Jun 10 14:40:31 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13684]: s5ADeQdt013684: from=<[email protected]>, size=677, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<[email protected]>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA-v4, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1] Jun 10 14:40:31 ubuntu12 sm-msp-queue[13674]: s5ACF2Nq011240: to=www-data, ctladdr=www-data (33/33), delay=01:25:29, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=660349, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (s5ADeQdt013684 Message accepted for delivery) Jun 10 14:40:31 ubuntu12 sm-mta[13723]: s5ADeQdt013684: to=<[email protected]>, ctladdr=<[email protected]> (33/33), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=local, pri=30946, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent Ju Further Investigation Spotted 4 spam accounts registered in the past day, which is suspicious however all have normal user privileges. There are no contact forms on the site, there are a number of forms and they take either filtered text input or plain text input. Mail is still being queued up having switched the website to maintenance mode, which blocks out everyone but the admin. Ok more investigation, it looks like the email is being send by my websites cron which runs every 5 minutes. However there are no cron jobs I've set-up which run more than once an hour and show on the website log so presumably someone has managed to edit my cron somehow. Copy of email: V8 T1402410301 K1402411201 N2 P120349 I253/1/369045 MDeferred: Connection refused by [127.0.0.1] Fbs $_www-data@localhost ${daemon_flags}c u Swww-data [email protected] MDeferred: Connection refused by [127.0.0.1] C:www-data rRFC822; [email protected] RPFD:www-data H?P?Return-Path: <?g> H??Received: (from www-data@localhost) by ubuntu12.pcsmarthosting.co.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s5AEP13T015507 for www-data; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:25:01 +0100 H?D?Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:25:01 +0100 H?x?Full-Name: CronDaemon H?M?Message-Id: <[email protected]> H??From: root (Cron Daemon) H??To: www-data H??Subject: Cron <www-data@ubuntu12> /usr/bin/drush @main elysia-cron H??Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 H??X-Cron-Env: <PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin> H??X-Cron-Env: <COLUMNS=80> H??X-Cron-Env: <SHELL=/bin/sh> H??X-Cron-Env: <HOME=/var/www> H??X-Cron-Env: <LOGNAME=www-data>

    Read the article

  • In Exim, is RBL spam rejected prior to being scanned by SpamAssassin?

    - by user955664
    I've recently been battling spam issues on our mail server. One account in particular was getting hammered with incoming spam. SpamAssassin's memory use is one of our concerns. What I've done is enable RBLs in Exim. I now see many rejection notices in the Exim log based on the various RBLs, which is good. However, when I run Eximstats, the numbers seem to be the same as they were prior to the enabling of the RBLs. I am assuming because the email is still logged in some way prior to the rejection. Is that what's happening, or am I missing something else? Does anyone know if these emails are rejected prior to being processed by SpamAssassin? Or does anyone know how I'd be able to find out? Is there a standard way to generate SpamAssassin stats, similar to Eximstats, so that I could compare the numbers? Thank you for your time and any advice. Edit: Here is the ACL section of my Exim configuration file ###################################################################### # ACLs # ###################################################################### begin acl # ACL that is used after the RCPT command check_recipient: # to block certain wellknown exploits, Deny for local domains if # local parts begin with a dot or contain @ % ! / | deny domains = +local_domains local_parts = ^[.] : ^.*[@%!/|] # to restrict port 587 to authenticated users only # see also daemon_smtp_ports above accept hosts = +auth_relay_hosts condition = ${if eq {$interface_port}{587} {yes}{no}} endpass message = relay not permitted, authentication required authenticated = * # allow local users to send outgoing messages using slashes # and vertical bars in their local parts. # Block outgoing local parts that begin with a dot, slash, or vertical # bar but allows them within the local part. # The sequence \..\ is barred. The usage of @ % and ! is barred as # before. The motivation is to prevent your users (or their virii) # from mounting certain kinds of attacks on remote sites. deny domains = !+local_domains local_parts = ^[./|] : ^.*[@%!] : ^.*/\\.\\./ # local source whitelist # accept if the source is local SMTP (i.e. not over TCP/IP). # Test for this by testing for an empty sending host field. accept hosts = : # sender domains whitelist # accept if sender domain is in whitelist accept sender_domains = +whitelist_domains # sender hosts whitelist # accept if sender host is in whitelist accept hosts = +whitelist_hosts accept hosts = +whitelist_hosts_ip # envelope senders whitelist # accept if envelope sender is in whitelist accept senders = +whitelist_senders # accept mail to postmaster in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = postmaster domains = +local_domains # accept mail to abuse in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = abuse domains = +local_domains # accept mail to hostmaster in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = hostmaster domains =+local_domains # OPTIONAL MODIFICATIONS: # If the page you're using to notify senders of blocked email of how # to get their address unblocked will use a web form to send you email so # you'll know to unblock those senders, then you may leave these lines # commented out. However, if you'll be telling your senders of blocked # email to send an email to [email protected], then you should # replace "errors" with the left side of the email address you'll be # using, and "example.com" with the right side of the email address and # then uncomment the second two lines, leaving the first one commented. # Doing this will mean anyone can send email to this specific address, # even if they're at a blocked domain, and even if your domain is using # blocklists. # accept mail to [email protected], regardless of source # accept local_parts = errors # domains = example.com # deny so-called "legal" spammers" deny message = Email blocked by LBL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains sender_domains = +blacklist_domains # deny using hostname in bad_sender_hosts blacklist deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains hosts = +bad_sender_hosts # deny using IP in bad_sender_hosts blacklist deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains hosts = +bad_sender_hosts_ip # deny using email address in blacklist_senders deny message = Email blocked by BSAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ domains = +use_rbl_domains senders = +blacklist_senders # By default we do NOT require sender verification. # Sender verification denies unless sender address can be verified: # If you want to require sender verification, i.e., that the sending # address is routable and mail can be delivered to it, then # uncomment the next line. If you do not want to require sender # verification, leave the line commented out #require verify = sender # deny using .spamhaus deny message = Email blocked by SPAMHAUS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains dnslists = sbl.spamhaus.org # deny using ordb # deny message = Email blocked by ORDB - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs # domains = +use_rbl_domains # dnslists = relays.ordb.org # deny using sorbs smtp list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains dnslists = dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.5 # Next deny stuff from more "fuzzy" blacklists # but do bypass all checking for whitelisted host names # and for authenticated users # deny using spamcop deny message = Email blocked by SPAMCOP - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = bl.spamcop.net # deny using njabl deny message = Email blocked by NJABL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = dnsbl.njabl.org # deny using cbl deny message = Email blocked by CBL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = cbl.abuseat.org # deny using all other sorbs ip-based blocklist besides smtp list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = dnsbl.sorbs.net!=127.0.0.6 # deny using sorbs name based list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ domains =+use_rbl_domains # rhsbl list is name based dnslists = rhsbl.sorbs.net/$sender_address_domain # accept if address is in a local domain as long as recipient can be verified accept domains = +local_domains endpass message = "Unknown User" verify = recipient # accept if address is in a domain for which we relay as long as recipient # can be verified accept domains = +relay_domains endpass verify=recipient # accept if message comes for a host for which we are an outgoing relay # recipient verification is omitted because many MUA clients don't cope # well with SMTP error responses. If you are actually relaying from MTAs # then you should probably add recipient verify here accept hosts = +relay_hosts accept hosts = +auth_relay_hosts endpass message = authentication required authenticated = * deny message = relay not permitted # default at end of acl causes a "deny", but line below will give # an explicit error message: deny message = relay not permitted # ACL that is used after the DATA command check_message: accept

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >