NULL on Max # of recipients |
Post Reply
|
| Author | |
Stephane
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: NULL on Max # of recipientsPosted: 05 January 2006 at 2:37pm |
|
Hi,
Is there an easy way to reject emails to NULL when it gets higher than the # of recipients (the setting in spamfilter).. we receive 30 to 40 outbreaks per hour of (75 emails) each time... from differents addresses... if we could drop the connection as soon as it gets outside the limit.. it would save on bandwidth... and definetively on Quarantine size... Many thanks and keep up the good work. |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 January 2006 at 8:27pm |
|
Stephane,
The option to send to NULL for that filter is not available, however the new SpamFilter ISP v2.7 features a new blacklist IP cache that will actually be even better. The "send to NULL" still forces SpamFilter to receive the full email, so bandwidth is still not saved. However with the new IP cache functionality, the "bad" IPs will be denied a connection. The following is an excerpt from the help file describing the new filter: Enable Cached IP Blocking - If an IP address sends more than a certain number of spam emails (3 by default) during a certain time interval (10 minutes by default), then it can be temporarily banned (blacklisted). All further connections from that IP address will be immediately rejected without allowing the sender to transmit any data. This should greatly reduce the load on the server. A banned IP address will be automatically removed from this temporary blacklist after a defined time interval (60 minutes by default). |
|
![]() |
|
Marco
Senior Member
Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 137 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 January 2006 at 8:44am |
|
Would adding another threshhold, one that counts the number of connection attempts by the bad IP, be usefull for putting that IP into a permanent ban? (honeypotlist) Marco |
|
|
Anyone who is capable of getting himself made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. D.Adams
|
|
![]() |
|
Stephane
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 January 2006 at 10:38am |
|
Hi,
Is it not that effective for that kind of attack, since the attacks are coming from a different ip addresses each time (infected computers used as open relays or others ..) But the connection would be dropped when the max number of recipient is reach ? I can do so at this moment, manually by using the connection screen and terminate the connection for which is sending more that # of recipient. Thanks. |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.


Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)


