>"Andrzej Filip" <a...@Box43.pl> wrote in message >news:3EC4AE75.6000200@Andrzej.Adam.Filip... >> Claus Aßmann wrote: >> > Ignoramus18126 wrote: >> > [...] >> >>I would like, temporarily, for a couple of weeks to block all email >> >>from <>, however I do not know how to do it with access.txt. Any >> >>ideas?
>And those using rfc-ignorant.org to reject mail should be listed in >really-ignorant.org DNSBL
I use a couple of the rfc-ignorant lists to block email to this account.
-- If a corporate CEO figures out how to shield his/her company from potential legal battles he/she is hailed as a hero by the WSJ, when Spews does it they're labeled cowards. (i_will_tossit in NANAE).
McWebber wrote: > And those using rfc-ignorant.org to reject mail should be listed in > really-ignorant.org DNSBL
Which specific lists provided by rfc-ignorant.org are so bad ? IMHO DSN, postmaster and ipwhois are good candidates for rbl use.
BTW You are free to create really-ignorant.org if you want. Success of such service would surprise me :-)
-- Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/ *Random epigram* : A child may have too much of his mother's blessing. -- Scottish Proverb
Ignoramus16316 wrote: > In article <3EC4DD18.8000...@Andrzej.Adam.Filip>, Andrzej Filip wrote: >[...] >> Does your sendmail act as a gateway between internet and internal email system >> (or as a secondary MX) ?
> Yes, I have a relay mailserver, that's the issue. > [...]
Can you easily get lis of all valid email adresses in internal server ?
-- Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/ *Random epigram* : Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
<ignoramus16...@NOSPAM.16316.invalid> wrote: >In article <kj3acvg7dhpe8s9nn9akoj2kq4dsp7q...@4ax.com>, Wm James wrote: >> On 16 May 2003 02:44:30 GMT, Ignoramus18126 >> <ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.18126.invalid> wrote:
>> >I am a sendmail user...
>> >I am being joe jobbed by some spammer, meaning that a spammer forges >> >thousands of spams using fake return addresses originating from >> >my_domain.com. So my mailserver receives thousands upon thousands of >> >bounces, most of which come from address <>, or MAILER_DAEMON.
>> >I would like, temporarily, for a couple of weeks to block all email >> >from <>, however I do not know how to do it with access.txt. Any >> >ideas?
>> >I need help ASAP, I am inundated.
>> >i
>> Can you forward? If so, get a copy of the spam and forward the whole >> thing back to the spammers' host. Let then turn it off when they get >> tired of it. It IS their sewage, after all, so their complaining of >> the stench would be inappropriate.
>I am dealing with a pro, he uses a number of open relays, no sense in >trying to follow him around.
> The problem is that I have my home computer, which IS mydomain.com, > and my colocated host, which is my mail server among other things, BUT > it does not have the same accounts. So emails sent to > myw...@mydomain.com go through my mailserver,which relays them to my > home box. So for all those bounces going to fake addresses, they have > to be accepted at the mailserver, queued, the server would then talk > to my home box, get a rejection, and then send a rejection back to > <>. Very expensive.
Set up the real acconts on the mail server, and have your home system query for new mail via POP3. It ain't that hard.
Ignoramus18126 <ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.18126.invalid> wrote in message <news:slrnbc8k4d.odp.ignoramus18126@manifold.algebra.com>... > I would like, temporarily, for a couple of weeks to block all email > from <>, however I do not know how to do it with access.txt. Any > ideas?
I dunno if this will help, but I made a ruleset to reject all messages without a fully qualified address in the To: field - so messages with To's like "Valued Customer" don't get re-written to "Valued@firewall.<mydomain>". I figure nobody from outside my domain should ever be using a To: without an @domain part. Here's what I put in my sendmail.cf:
SCheckTo R$+ , $+ $@ $>LookupHeaderUser $1 #R$* $@ $>LookupHeaderUser $1 R$+ @ $+ $@ $>LookupHeaderUser $1 R$* $#error $: 553 Header Error no domain name in To:
The commented out line is what used to be the catch-all, and I just replaced it with a rule to say "something@something" should be checked, but anything else (messages with no @domain part) should be bounced.
Ok, so I get a FEW rejections of possibly legit email because some email clients use a To: of "Undisclosed-Recipients:;" if all the recipient addresses are in the Bcc line. (shrug) I don't care 'bout them and this blocks a ton of spam.
Oh, wait, you said it was *from* <> huh. Ok, so you could probably put in a similar rule for the SCheckFrom ruleset too. In fact, I've been meaning to but just haven't gotten to it.
Dolphin wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2003 09:41:09 -0500 Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. <lshel...@creighton.edu> > wrote in message <Pine.HPX.4.53.0305220940430.14...@Bluejay.creighton.edu>:
>>Thus spake Ignoramus16316 on Fri, 16 May 2003:
>>>I need an answer to my question, not an altopia flame.
>>Go for it. What is your question?
> What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9?
> Dolphin.
42
Arthur Dent.
-- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 4:30pm up 3 days, 22:04, 3 users, load average: 2.18, 2.36, 2.46
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 09:41:09 -0500 Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. <lshel...@creighton.edu> > wrote in message <Pine.HPX.4.53.0305220940430.14...@Bluejay.creighton.edu>: > > Thus spake Ignoramus16316 on Fri, 16 May 2003:
> >> I need an answer to my question, not an altopia flame.
Dolphin (usenet-May+na...@2003.dolphinwave.org) wrote to news.admin.net-abuse.email on Thursday 22 May 2003 20:15 in message <slrnbcq42k.ct3.usenet-May+na...@orca.dolphinwave.org>:
> What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9?
Uhh... 666,666,666. -- G. Stewart -- ROT13( tfgrj...@fcnzpbc.arg ) ROT13( tfgrj...@obavirg.arg ) Spamcop user, not an official - Registered Linux user #284683 --------------------------------------------------------------- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
