SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2 - VMS

This is a discussion on SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2 - VMS ; I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications. Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2? Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me up to about ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

  1. SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    in Google Groups.

    I made modifications to the anti-relay version of
    SMTP_SERVER.B32, about 300 lines, and came up with
    several methods to reduce SPAM as well as added an
    optional usage of a DNS blackhole list to reject
    messages from hosts that are in the list. Using all
    the anti-SPAM messages and the blackhole list
    "zen.spamhaus.org" my SPAM was reduced by about 85-90%.
    Since then the SPAM has reduced and now I only get a
    few a day.

    I know that rejecting email based on the HELO
    message isn't good according to the RFCs but looking
    at what's on the Internet, I see many doing it
    and the seriousness of the SPAM problem is making
    it popular.

    Here is my documentation on how to use it:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    New SPAM filter functionality for MX 4.2:

    Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL

    Defines the name of the SPAM DNS Blackhole list to use.
    MX will take the remote address and check the blackhole
    list specified. If found on the list, the email will be
    rejected at the RCPT_TO command with the error:

    554 Mail rejected; remote host is listed in SPAM DNS blackhole list <...>

    where <...> is the value of MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL


    Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_SPAMCODE

    Defines which SPAM rules to use in filtering.
    Value is the sum of the rules as follows:

    Rule
    1 Reject connections which use localhost as the HELO domain and
    the connection does not originate from 127.0.0.1 or connections
    which use localhost.localdomain. These will be rejected with
    the status:

    554 Fix your HELO domain, localhost usually means SPAM.

    2 Reject connections which use your hostname as the HELO domain
    and who's originating IP does not match. This includes connections
    using your host IP number. These will be rejected with the status:

    554 Fix your HELO domain, using mine usually means SPAM.

    4 Reject connections which do not use a fully qualified domain as
    the HELO domain. Specifically, the name must contain a "." or it
    will be rejected with the status:

    504 Not a fully qualified domain name, usually means SPAM.

    8 Reject RCPT_TO addresses who's local part does not contain a ":" and
    is greater than 12 characters (the max VMS username) for the case where
    the remote server is not in the relay.dat list (i.e. the RCPT_TO should
    be directed to the local system). These will be rejected with the status:

    550 Username is not valid on this system.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    distributing my changes?

    I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.

    --
    Vance Haemmerle

  2. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?


    Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    it about 2 weeks ago... :-)

    (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    but that's another story.)

    I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    I see a lot of mails from users like :
    ,
    and so on.
    Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...

    Jan-Erik.



    >
    > Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    > up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    > MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    > Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    > by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    > domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    > usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    > IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    > in Google Groups.
    >
    > I made modifications to the anti-relay version of SMTP_SERVER.B32, about
    > 300 lines, and came up with
    > several methods to reduce SPAM as well as added an
    > optional usage of a DNS blackhole list to reject
    > messages from hosts that are in the list. Using all
    > the anti-SPAM messages and the blackhole list "zen.spamhaus.org" my SPAM
    > was reduced by about 85-90%.
    > Since then the SPAM has reduced and now I only get a
    > few a day.
    >
    > I know that rejecting email based on the HELO
    > message isn't good according to the RFCs but looking
    > at what's on the Internet, I see many doing it
    > and the seriousness of the SPAM problem is making
    > it popular.
    >
    > Here is my documentation on how to use it:
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > New SPAM filter functionality for MX 4.2:
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Defines the name of the SPAM DNS Blackhole list to use.
    > MX will take the remote address and check the blackhole
    > list specified. If found on the list, the email will be
    > rejected at the RCPT_TO command with the error:
    >
    > 554 Mail rejected; remote host is listed in SPAM DNS blackhole list <...>
    >
    > where <...> is the value of MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_SPAMCODE
    >
    > Defines which SPAM rules to use in filtering.
    > Value is the sum of the rules as follows:
    >
    > Rule
    > 1 Reject connections which use localhost as the HELO domain and
    > the connection does not originate from 127.0.0.1 or connections
    > which use localhost.localdomain. These will be rejected with
    > the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, localhost usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 2 Reject connections which use your hostname as the HELO domain
    > and who's originating IP does not match. This includes connections
    > using your host IP number. These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, using mine usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 4 Reject connections which do not use a fully qualified domain as
    > the HELO domain. Specifically, the name must contain a "." or it
    > will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 504 Not a fully qualified domain name, usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 8 Reject RCPT_TO addresses who's local part does not contain a ":" and
    > is greater than 12 characters (the max VMS username) for the case where
    > the remote server is not in the relay.dat list (i.e. the RCPT_TO should
    > be directed to the local system). These will be rejected with the
    > status:
    >
    > 550 Username is not valid on this system.
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.
    >
    > --
    > Vance Haemmerle


  3. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?


    Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    it about 2 weeks ago... :-)

    (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    but that's another story.)

    I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    I see a lot of mails from users like :
    ,
    and so on.
    Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...

    Jan-Erik.



    >
    > Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    > up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    > MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    > Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    > by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    > domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    > usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    > IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    > in Google Groups.
    >
    > I made modifications to the anti-relay version of SMTP_SERVER.B32, about
    > 300 lines, and came up with
    > several methods to reduce SPAM as well as added an
    > optional usage of a DNS blackhole list to reject
    > messages from hosts that are in the list. Using all
    > the anti-SPAM messages and the blackhole list "zen.spamhaus.org" my SPAM
    > was reduced by about 85-90%.
    > Since then the SPAM has reduced and now I only get a
    > few a day.
    >
    > I know that rejecting email based on the HELO
    > message isn't good according to the RFCs but looking
    > at what's on the Internet, I see many doing it
    > and the seriousness of the SPAM problem is making
    > it popular.
    >
    > Here is my documentation on how to use it:
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > New SPAM filter functionality for MX 4.2:
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Defines the name of the SPAM DNS Blackhole list to use.
    > MX will take the remote address and check the blackhole
    > list specified. If found on the list, the email will be
    > rejected at the RCPT_TO command with the error:
    >
    > 554 Mail rejected; remote host is listed in SPAM DNS blackhole list <...>
    >
    > where <...> is the value of MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_SPAMCODE
    >
    > Defines which SPAM rules to use in filtering.
    > Value is the sum of the rules as follows:
    >
    > Rule
    > 1 Reject connections which use localhost as the HELO domain and
    > the connection does not originate from 127.0.0.1 or connections
    > which use localhost.localdomain. These will be rejected with
    > the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, localhost usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 2 Reject connections which use your hostname as the HELO domain
    > and who's originating IP does not match. This includes connections
    > using your host IP number. These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, using mine usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 4 Reject connections which do not use a fully qualified domain as
    > the HELO domain. Specifically, the name must contain a "." or it
    > will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 504 Not a fully qualified domain name, usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 8 Reject RCPT_TO addresses who's local part does not contain a ":" and
    > is greater than 12 characters (the max VMS username) for the case where
    > the remote server is not in the relay.dat list (i.e. the RCPT_TO should
    > be directed to the local system). These will be rejected with the
    > status:
    >
    > 550 Username is not valid on this system.
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.
    >
    > --
    > Vance Haemmerle


  4. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?




    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.


    Just a coincidence (or a near miss ?):
    MX 6 is now open source, see
    http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    and

    http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006


    --

    Joseph Huber - http://www.huber-joseph.de

  5. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?




    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.


    Just a coincidence (or a near miss ?):
    MX 6 is now open source, see
    http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    and

    http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006


    --

    Joseph Huber - http://www.huber-joseph.de

  6. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article ,
    Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    > Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    > it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >
    > (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    > but that's another story.)
    >
    > I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    > I see a lot of mails from users like :
    > ,
    > and so on.
    > Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...
    >


    Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)

    And, before someone asks, yes, I would.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  7. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article ,
    Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    > Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    > it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >
    > (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    > but that's another story.)
    >
    > I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    > I see a lot of mails from users like :
    > ,
    > and so on.
    > Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...
    >


    Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)

    And, before someone asks, yes, I would.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  8. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >
    >Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    >up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    >MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    >Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    >by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    >domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    >usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    >IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    >in Google Groups.


    I've notice a *marked* increase in SPAM since the holidays. Probably all
    of those new _V_isual _I_nterface _S_imilar _T_o _A_pple boxes foisted on
    the hapless as holiday presents without knowledge of how to properly sec-
    ure them prior to putting them on the internet.

    Regardless, if you visit http://www.MadGoat.com you will see that Matt has
    put the sources up for MX 6.0 and other MagGoat products. This may help
    you with your present SPAM issues.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  9. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >
    >Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    >up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    >MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    >Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    >by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    >domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    >usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    >IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    >in Google Groups.


    I've notice a *marked* increase in SPAM since the holidays. Probably all
    of those new _V_isual _I_nterface _S_imilar _T_o _A_pple boxes foisted on
    the hapless as holiday presents without knowledge of how to properly sec-
    ure them prior to putting them on the internet.

    Regardless, if you visit http://www.MadGoat.com you will see that Matt has
    put the sources up for MX 6.0 and other MagGoat products. This may help
    you with your present SPAM issues.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  10. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <61b0liF1u8k6sU5@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >>
    >> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>
    >> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >> but that's another story.)
    >>
    >> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >> I see a lot of mails from users like :
    >> ,
    >> and so on.
    >> Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...
    >>

    >
    >Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)
    >
    >And, before someone asks, yes, I would.


    I have. I have put the email addresses of a few people I know using Yahoo
    on a whilelist but the volume of crap coming from Yahoo.com warranted, IMO,
    blocking that whole domain. It will be absolutely necessary, IMHO, if/when
    M$ acquired Yahoo.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  11. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <61b0liF1u8k6sU5@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >>
    >> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>
    >> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >> but that's another story.)
    >>
    >> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >> I see a lot of mails from users like :
    >> ,
    >> and so on.
    >> Only Yahoo adresses for some reason...
    >>

    >
    >Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)
    >
    >And, before someone asks, yes, I would.


    I have. I have put the email addresses of a few people I know using Yahoo
    on a whilelist but the volume of crap coming from Yahoo.com warranted, IMO,
    blocking that whole domain. It will be absolutely necessary, IMHO, if/when
    M$ acquired Yahoo.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  12. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >distributing my changes?


    Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.

    Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)

    --
    Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    E-mail peter@langstoeger.at
    A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

  13. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >distributing my changes?


    Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.

    Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)

    --
    Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    E-mail peter@langstoeger.at
    A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

  14. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote:
    > In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >> distributing my changes?

    >
    > Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.
    >
    > Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)
    >


    Is the free V5 what is called "V6" ?

    Jan-Erik.

  15. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote:
    > In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >> distributing my changes?

    >
    > Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.
    >
    > Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)
    >


    Is the free V5 what is called "V6" ?

    Jan-Erik.

  16. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Joseph Huber wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >> distributing my changes?
    >>
    >> I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    >> I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    >> for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.

    >
    >
    > Just a coincidence (or a near miss ?):
    > MX 6 is now open source, see
    > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    > and
    >
    > http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006
    >
    >
    >


    Thanks for pointing me to this, I missed it. The last time I
    checked madgoat.com, a few weeks ago, it was still "under construction"
    and site of the former Madgoat Software.

    At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.

    --
    Vance

  17. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Joseph Huber wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >> distributing my changes?
    >>
    >> I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    >> I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    >> for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.

    >
    >
    > Just a coincidence (or a near miss ?):
    > MX 6 is now open source, see
    > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    > and
    >
    > http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006
    >
    >
    >


    Thanks for pointing me to this, I missed it. The last time I
    checked madgoat.com, a few weeks ago, it was still "under construction"
    and site of the former Madgoat Software.

    At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.

    --
    Vance

  18. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >
    >>I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>
    >>Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    >>up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    >>MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    >>Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    >>by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    >>domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    >>usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    >>IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    >>in Google Groups.

    >
    >
    > I've notice a *marked* increase in SPAM since the holidays. Probably all
    > of those new _V_isual _I_nterface _S_imilar _T_o _A_pple boxes foisted on
    > the hapless as holiday presents without knowledge of how to properly sec-
    > ure them prior to putting them on the internet.
    >
    > Regardless, if you visit http://www.MadGoat.com you will see that Matt has
    > put the sources up for MX 6.0 and other MagGoat products. This may help
    > you with your present SPAM issues.
    >
    >


    Thanks for the pointer. My changes to the SMTP_SERVER for
    MX V4.2 have been working pretty well over the last 7 months
    and I wanted to see if anyone wanted them. I guess the
    preferred option for those on Itanium or Alpha would be MX 6.

    --
    Vance

  19. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >
    >>I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>
    >>Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    >>up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    >>MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    >>Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    >>by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    >>domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    >>usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    >>IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    >>in Google Groups.

    >
    >
    > I've notice a *marked* increase in SPAM since the holidays. Probably all
    > of those new _V_isual _I_nterface _S_imilar _T_o _A_pple boxes foisted on
    > the hapless as holiday presents without knowledge of how to properly sec-
    > ure them prior to putting them on the internet.
    >
    > Regardless, if you visit http://www.MadGoat.com you will see that Matt has
    > put the sources up for MX 6.0 and other MagGoat products. This may help
    > you with your present SPAM issues.
    >
    >


    Thanks for the pointer. My changes to the SMTP_SERVER for
    MX V4.2 have been working pretty well over the last 7 months
    and I wanted to see if anyone wanted them. I guess the
    preferred option for those on Itanium or Alpha would be MX 6.

    --
    Vance

  20. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <_o4sj.3758$R_4.2775@newsb.telia.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes:
    >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote:
    >> In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >>> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >>> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >>> distributing my changes?

    >>
    >> Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.
    >>
    >> Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)

    >
    >Is the free V5 what is called "V6" ?


    It looks like.
    Matt seems to call it V6 now (to tell, that it now supports I64 as well ;-)
    I don't know if there are any differences to my MX V5.4 (ECO x), will have
    to check myself soon (when my I64 finally boots)...

    --
    Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    E-mail peter@langstoeger.at
    A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast