Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Peter N. M. Hansteen
Date: Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 3:29 pm

J Moore <jaymo@cullmail.com> writes:


The way spamd works your message does not get handled by a real smtp
daemon until it clears greylisting, in contrast to the various
greylisting MTA plugins (postgrey which lives inside postfix adds a
rather verbose message to headers IIRC).  bsdly.net runs spamd, so
studying your logs or inbox to fish out any reference to the message
I'm answering now will produce the answer you are looking for.  Did
the delivery of this message produce anything you would rather not
have your friends or customers to see?


False postitives are bad, bad, bad.  I would not want to make any
sweeping assertions without studying your setup, but I suspect you are
either bit by side effects of a badly maintained blacklist or the
senders whos mail isn't getting delivered misconfigured mail servers
which do not retry properly.

Cheers,
-- 
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
"First, we kill all the spammers" The Usenet Bard, "Twice-forwarded tales"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, J Moore, (Mon Feb 19, 9:48 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Peter N. M. Hansteen, (Tue Feb 20, 6:16 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Rogier Krieger, (Tue Feb 20, 7:39 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Jimmy Mäkelä | Loopia AB, (Tue Feb 20, 7:52 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Lars Hansson, (Tue Feb 20, 7:57 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Rogier Krieger, (Tue Feb 20, 8:21 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Woodchuck, (Tue Feb 20, 11:00 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Brian Keefer, (Tue Feb 20, 12:50 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive? , Theo de Raadt, (Tue Feb 20, 12:54 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive? , Theo de Raadt, (Tue Feb 20, 1:23 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Bob Beck, (Tue Feb 20, 1:23 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive? , Brian Keefer, (Tue Feb 20, 1:23 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Darren Spruell, (Tue Feb 20, 1:36 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive? , Woodchuck, (Tue Feb 20, 1:40 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Brian Keefer, (Tue Feb 20, 1:57 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Jacob Yocom-Piatt, (Tue Feb 20, 2:07 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Han Boetes, (Tue Feb 20, 2:28 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Bob Beck, (Tue Feb 20, 2:43 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, ericfurman, (Tue Feb 20, 2:51 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Allie D., (Tue Feb 20, 3:21 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, (Tue Feb 20, 3:33 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Brian Keefer, (Tue Feb 20, 3:59 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Darren Spruell, (Tue Feb 20, 5:56 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Joachim Schipper, (Wed Feb 21, 11:29 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, (Fri Feb 23, 6:56 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, J Moore, (Sat Mar 10, 11:30 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Darren Spruell, (Sat Mar 10, 11:56 am)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Philip Guenther, (Sat Mar 10, 12:43 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Darren Spruell, (Sat Mar 10, 12:53 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Philip Guenther, (Sat Mar 10, 1:19 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Peter N. M. Hansteen, (Sat Mar 10, 3:29 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Darrin Chandler, (Sat Mar 10, 4:56 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, Peter N. M. Hansteen, (Sat Mar 10, 7:43 pm)
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?, J Moore, (Sat Mar 10, 11:27 pm)