removing catch-all, blackhole functionality

empowering

empowering

Verified User
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
167
Location
New York
adds WAY too much server load if spamassassin is added and now a days really serves no purpose (other than to get a lot of spam from spammers)

Once we have disabled this function server load dropped dramaticly in some cases. (especially if the catch all was forwared off site)

Want an option to disable catch all/blackhole either server wide OR per account.

Another option for the catch all is to force the Email to stay to a local email account.
 
Having the ability to disable catch-all is probably the biggest single anti-spam and server load fix right now.

I'd love to see this implemented.
 
I found putting catch-all email to "ignore" has reduced my spam by 90%.
 
dannygoh said:
Hi,

Is there a command in ssh to check what is the domain has enable catch-all.
Click to expand...

Yes for a quick check:

find /etc/virtual -name "aliases" -exec grep -H "*: " {} \; | grep -v "fail"
 
Has this been implemented? I can't find anything anywhere as I too would love the ability to turn this off server wide and overwrite the users.
 
DA we need this feature!!!!!!!

On our stock DA reseller servers we are getting constant dictionary attacks for users who enable it.
 
catch all should be for ever disabled !
same for blackhole which is not rfc compliant

use only true address even you have a lot !
 
so what would you guys want the /etc/virtual/domain.com/aliases file to look like when it's off?

1) without the * at all
2) with *: :blackhole: (no bounces are sent)
3) with *: :fail: (denies the email right away)

and I'm assuming you'd want the option to hide the catch-all screen completly.,

One other thing that can be done if you know you're not going to have a catch-all is this:
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/sh...12039&perpage=20&highlight=spamd&pagenumber=2
to your spam section in the exim.conf. It will ensure that the email is only accepted for spam scanning if the account exists. With the catch-all turned off, this isn't a problem. With the catch-all on, you can't really use it because then the random email address won't get scanned.. and they're the ones that get the most spam anyway. Without those changes to the spam section all email is always accepted from the smtp to be scanned. It's then bounced later if the account doesn't exist, which isn't great. So only use this if you don't have any catch-alls. (or set them to fail)

John
 
It should be set to fail with the catchall screen removed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the blackhole option still causes the mail to be accepted and then dropped on the floor, which is still a server load issue.
 
yes, that's correct. However, with spamassassin in its default state (Without the changes mentioned above) all email is first accepted by spamassasin to be scanned... only then does it get failed..meaning a bounce email has to be sent out, which isn't that great. To get it to deny the mailer at smtp time, use the above spam settings, with the catch-all turned off.

John
 
No John !
That's because you don't have exim.conf set up correctly to reject at smtp time...
You don't need SA for that...
;)
 
do you happen to know if smtp time can block user set user_prefs files?.. and if it supports different redirect options (like filters)? I recall looking a while back but didn't find anything definate.

John
 
I don't use filter, you can throw away that old thing.
Even system_filter is obsolete.
The redirectors are partially bad in exim.conf.

The DA system for exim/mail system has to be rewrited.
Same with obsolete spamblocker, howewer it's based on a good idea, but from ice ages.

You can do very much better with exim and SA (optional), there is a good documentation with lot of possibilities/ variables.

The world change, so we have to change the way too (or to ;) ).

I know somebody will be happy with my mind, but you have to adapt yourself the new technologies and menaces, and fight against all that sh*t... and update your books.

I hope you will have the courage to do it.
 
John,

There is a pretty good explanation of the issue in regards to per user at SMTP level with EXIM at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg17847.html

I have a system that does a global spam check at the SMTP level and rejects ALL mail with a score over 15 (surprisingly large volume of total mail). If a message passes through that it then drops down to the per user scanning.

There is no perfect answer on this.....the removal of catchall is a quick and powerful fix for today :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top