postfix-users October 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > postfix-users archives
postfix-users: Re: hide (do not disclose) reject reason to clien

Re: hide (do not disclose) reject reason to client but log as usual

From: mouss <mouss_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Oct 13 2010 - 19:19:40 GMT
To: Postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org>

  Le 13/10/2010 21:11, Costin Gusa a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 22:03, mouss<mouss@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
>> Le 13/10/2010 00:43, Costin Gusa a écrit :
>>> see, mouss, that's the reason in my systems this email would have
>>> never got a chance for "220 OK", even without any external spam filter
>>> in place.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 22:42, The Doctor<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Doctor Who saying in the 1970s.
>>>>
>>>> What do I need to reverse.
>>>>
>>>> Tried another MTA and got reports that people were not getting e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> All right switch back.
>>>>
>>>> Forgot that the 'sendmail' was not the correct one.
>>>>
>>>> No problem, just use the postfix sendmail.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm!! No mail is getting delievered.
>>>>
>>>> What did I forget?
>>>> --
>>>> Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici
>>>> doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
>>>> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist
>>>> rising!
>>>> http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
>>>> Are you a real human: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm
>>>>
>>> ...because of the following header:
>>>
>>> Received: from localhost (localhost.nl2k.ab.ca [127.0.0.1])
>>> by doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2030912CFC90
>>> for<postfix-users@postfix.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:01:47 -0600
>>> (MDT)
>> then you're wrong. localhost is ok in an internal header. while you can
>> check internal headers for spam signs, you should play on the safe side
>> here. if you're new to the game, go on. but believe me, it is a "marathon"
>> and you should not run too fast in the beginning! do not try to stop any one
>> spam at the cost of spending your day and at the cost of blocking legitimate
>> mail. the goal is not to block _all_ spam. the goal is to make the costs of
>> dealing with spam low enough.
>>
>>
> eh, sorry for rushing too fast, I red the wrong header, I misthought
> that host said "helo localhost" to cloud9 :)
> but anyway, 95% of my rejects are on helos+rbl+user unknown

same here. 94% here with only "safe" checks:
- 75% rejects: recipient unknown
- 11%: local BL (snowshoe)
- 8%: spamhaus