Re: spamd question (4.1)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Darrin Chandler <dwchandler@...>
Cc: <misc@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 12:24 am

On 7/23/07, Darrin Chandler wrote:

Good point.

> If you are concerned about the entries that you saw whitelisted, have

I've not had a chance to examine where the white listed hosts
were trying to send to (yet). I have yet to run sendmail to
accept incoming mail. However, while monitoring the output
from spamdb, I did noticed most "to" addresses for the GREY
trapped hosts were bogus recipients.

> Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above,

I see your point about open relays and such.

Thanks for your input!
--patrick

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
spamd question (4.1), patrick keshishian, (Mon Jul 23, 11:05 pm)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Darrin Chandler, (Mon Jul 23, 11:51 pm)
Re: spamd question (4.1), RW, (Tue Jul 24, 12:30 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Jacob Yocom-Piatt, (Tue Jul 24, 7:01 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), RW, (Tue Jul 24, 7:12 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Craig Skinner, (Tue Jul 24, 7:11 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Jacob Yocom-Piatt, (Tue Jul 24, 7:37 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Stuart Henderson, (Tue Jul 24, 7:49 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), syl, (Tue Jul 24, 7:53 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Stuart Henderson, (Tue Jul 24, 8:09 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), Yannick Francois, (Tue Jul 24, 8:38 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), syl, (Tue Jul 24, 9:15 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), syl, (Tue Jul 24, 7:58 am)
Re: spamd question (4.1), patrick keshishian, (Tue Jul 24, 12:24 am)