Articles delegate-en/3450-3460 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
search
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
range 3450 - 3460   digest:
delegate rejects domains not in the list
  08/07-01:46 . 3450  Martin Papadopoulos <payeabdyi-lnxhrzvxrvnr.ml@ml.delegate.org> [67]
___ hello yutaka, for example mails from mxpool*.ebay.com i could send you a prepared log file for analysis if you want to. greetz martin papadopoulos Yutaka Sato schrieb:
  08/07-02:34 . 3452  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [27]
___ Hi, Your mail including the whole REJECT list was posted to the open forum forwarded via feedback@delegate.org, so I removed it from the spool. Well, your REJECT list includes a line as this: REJECT
  08/07-03:35 . 3453  Martin Papadopoulos <payeabdyi-lnxhrzvxrvnr.ml@ml.delegate.org> [63]
___ hello yutaka, works fine now , keep up the good work ! greetz martin papadopoulos Yutaka Sato schrieb:
Is there any way to control&limit user's Session&Connections when use delegate as socks 5 proxy?
  08/07-05:33 . 3454  liword <ppygqbdyi-lnxhrzvxrvnr.ml@ml.delegate.org> [3]
___ Is there any way to control&limit user's Session&Connections when use delegate as socks 5 proxy?For example limit useA can create only 1 session to connect net at a time.
  08/07-08:01 . 3455  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [28]
___ There is no SOCKS specific control but a generic parameter to limit the max. number of connection from a host at a time as this: MAXIMA=conpch:1 This limitation can be applied only to a specified ho
  08/07-11:01 . 3456  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [115]
___ Hi, Limiting resource usage per user is a feature in the TODO list of DeleGate to be supported from the beginning. Now I feel it might be a time, so I tried to implement it (it will be released in 9
SPAM blocking by DeleGate (Re: delegate rejects domains not in the list)
  08/07-13:36 . 3457  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [143]
___ Hi, By the way, if your intention is to block SPAMs, I don't recommend you to use the REJECT list based on domain name, since it is difficult to identify exaustless spammers by domain spreading over
  08/08-01:31 . 3458  Martin Papadopoulos <payeabdyi-lnxhrzvxrvnr.ml@ml.delegate.org> [571]
___ hello yutaka, it would be awesome if you could implement an smtp reject for non mx servers. i mean that if the reverse lookup entry does not contain a valid MX record, or to satisfy scenario of mult
  08/08-12:01 . 3459  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [43]
___ Hi, Doing access control based on the (existence of) MX record seems useful and I'll support it in the next release. But "callback" will be useful to be used together with it. Yes, spammers do not t
  08/08-12:26 . 3460  feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato) [52]
___ Hi, I tested an extenstion like the enclosed patch with a parameter as follows: RELIABLE="_MX.*" It seems working as I expected to reject hosts without a MX record. It will be able to be extended to
Empty-Articles = [3451]
  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
Generated:08/25 19:07:54 (1 sec) Expires:08/26 01:07:53 @_@V