On Fri, 3 May 2002 11:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not sure, but how many ISPs still allow direct-to-MX-style mail
> sending (sending direct from the dialup or cable or whatever, without
> using additional mail servers)? I know quite a few Australian ISP that
> still allow it (not the big ones like
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:34:09AM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> Hi again
>
> However from a 'email service provider' point of view (as per my
> original email) I do not wish to block ANY legitimate email. The more
> spam that is bounced the better BUT my requirement is purely 'If it
> blocks
> > > Yes, but here is the thing you did not mention. Spamcop does not
> > > automatically block an IP just because a few people complained. It
> > > takes into consideration the ENTIRE mail volume. So, using your
> > > example, if the mailing list sends out 50,000 emails per day, and
some
> > >
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:34:09AM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> However from a 'email service provider' point of view (as per my
> original email) I do not wish to block ANY legitimate email. The more
> spam that is bounced the better BUT my requirement is purely 'If it
> blocks legitimate email,
Hi again
Really the comparison between rbl lists is academic. It is good that
there are many different and evolving systems to block spam accordingly
with different success rates.
However from a 'email service provider' point of view (as per my
original email) I do not wish to block ANY legit
On Fri, 3 May 2002 08:23, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Yes, but here is the thing you did not mention. Spamcop does not
> > automatically block an IP just because a few people complained. It
> > takes into consideration the ENTIRE mail volume. So, using your
> > example, if the mailing list sends out
On Fri, 3 May 2002 00:43, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:57:54PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If you're in contact with any senior people at these companies suggest
> > to them that they use different mail servers (with different IP
> > addresses for outgoing traffic) for dif
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:44:28AM +1000, Jean-Francois Dive wrote:
Hi Jean-Francois,
> well, quite sure you'll have to write them yourself...
Yes, it does look like it. I was hoping that someone may
have done them for a class.
Thanks.
Bao
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:09:50AM -0400, Bao C.
> > I might also mention that it is not hard to get out of spamcop's
> > lists, even if you are listed. Unless a site continually gets spam
> > complaints, I think spamcop checks the RBL database ever 24hr... or
was
> > it every week... and removes stale/old entries. Try to get off some
> > of t
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 03:11:39AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
>
>
> Okay, i think it comes down to personal preference. I saw the
> Spamassassin's "rule" list... someone typing in the word "AMAZING" gets
> 0.125 or something points, "FREE" gets how many points, etc. All it takes
> is for spammers t
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Don't configure your MTA to send copies of bounces to the postmaster.
>
> Is that even possible with qmail? It seems to junk everything into
> postmaster.
Maybe the bounces were double-bounces. Anyways, look at the qmail-control
and qmail-send man pages.
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 03:11:39AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> Okay, i think it comes down to personal preference. I saw the
> Spamassassin's "rule" list... someone typing in the word "AMAZING"
> gets 0.125 or something points, "FREE" gets how many points, etc. All
> it takes is for spammers to simp
> Then I started using Exim. It doesn't send bounces to the postmaster by
> default. (I just view the queue daily and receive an eximstats -- log
> anaylsist report -- daily.)
>
> Don't configure your MTA to send copies of bounces to the postmaster.
Is that even possible with qmail? It seems to
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> I *REALLY* hate it when these spammers try dictionary attacks. The
> postmaster accounts fill up with thousands upon thousands of emails, until
> they are over quota. Then the emails double/triple bounce to the admin of
> the server (us).
I remember that hi
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:55:12PM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> > Seems that one persons advertising email is another persons spam.
>
> no, the key difference between advertising email and spam is that spam
> is unsolicited.
>
> not all advertising email is spam, and not all spam is adver
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 06:52:33PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Well, they are not exactly comparable, as the rule-based Spamassassin
> > does things based on "keywords and "keyphrases" and that kind of
> > thing, while RBLs do things based on actual spam activity. In my view,
> > the collateral
> Sometimes people forget that they signed up for a mailing list and when
some
> content arrive they treat it as spam. But also some big companies just
> genuinely think that an advert for their products is desired by millions
of
> people and that they should send it out indiscriminately.
>
> If
I *REALLY* hate it when these spammers try dictionary attacks. The
postmaster accounts fill up with thousands upon thousands of emails, until
they are over quota. Then the emails double/triple bounce to the admin of
the server (us).
Sincerely,
Jason
http://www.zentek-international.com
- Orig
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:57:54PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you're in contact with any senior people at these companies suggest
> to them that they use different mail servers (with different IP
> addresses for outgoing traffic) for different purposes. Then when
> their advertising server
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:55:12PM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> Seems that one persons advertising email is another persons spam.
no, the key difference between advertising email and spam is that spam
is unsolicited.
not all advertising email is spam, and not all spam is advertising.
if it
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 06:52:33PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well, they are not exactly comparable, as the rule-based Spamassassin
> does things based on "keywords and "keyphrases" and that kind of
> thing, while RBLs do things based on actual spam activity. In my view,
> the collateral damage of
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gene Grimm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:24:57AM -0400, Gene Grimm wrote:
> > Speaking as an ISP
Bao Phan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> I just read your post, why don't you download it at:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/scripts/fileman/download.htm
Hmm, a reply to a >1year old post to a mailing list? Either you're a
really nice guy trying to help me out, or you're trying to get me to buy
a
On Thu, 2 May 2002 21:55, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> I would love for it to work but I spent a couple of days tracking down
> why some email (to do with payroll so was very important) was being
> bounced.
>
> Turned out to be spamcop. As soon as I removed the rbl from my sendmail
> config the mail sta
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:24:57AM -0400, Gene Grimm wrote:
> Speaking as an ISP that has to deal with spam complaints from our clients,
> most people consider it spam if it was unrequested -- thus the definition of
> Unsolicited Commercial Email. It's bad enough to have to deal with junk ads
> th
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 06:52:33PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> > procmail/spamassasin process mails yes "inside" the server, I just
> > give you a made up example:
> >
> > 60 Mails incoming per Minute,
> >
> > 5 seconds average Spamassasin procesing time per Mail
> >
> > => 60-12 =
Speaking as an ISP that has to deal with spam complaints from our clients,
most people consider it spam if it was unrequested -- thus the definition of
Unsolicited Commercial Email. It's bad enough to have to deal with junk ads
through snail mail, but now we have to deal with junk ads in electroni
I would love for it to work but I spent a couple of days tracking down why
some email (to do with payroll so was very important) was being bounced.
Turned out to be spamcop. As soon as I removed the rbl from my sendmail config
the mail started flowing again.
Problem seems to be that GE and Pi
On Thu, 2 May 2002 19:58, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> I've found that spamcop blocks email from both GE (General Electric) and
> Pizza Hut mail servers which clients of mine need to receive.
>
> I've found that no matter what RBL list I use there is always legitimate
> mail being blocked and therefore
I've found that spamcop blocks email from both GE (General Electric) and
Pizza Hut mail servers which clients of mine need to receive.
I've found that no matter what RBL list I use there is always legitimate
mail being blocked and therefore useless for me as an global email
service provider.
> procmail/spamassasin process mails yes "inside" the server, I just
> give you a made up example:
>
> 60 Mails incoming per Minute,
>
> 5 seconds average Spamassasin procesing time per Mail
>
> => 60-12 = 48 Mails per Minute piling up on your incoming mail
> queue = 48 new S
>
> > Does the -t option work in such a way, that if -t 10 was inserted,
then
> > the mail server would wait a maximum of 10 seconds for the lookup
requests
> > to be complete, and if they aren't complete, then ignore them and let
the
> > email through?
>
> Sadly, that's not what I've understood
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> From http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.html
[SNIP]
> rblsmtpd drops the limited SMTP conversation after 60 seconds, even if the
> client has not quit by then.
>
> Options:
>
> * -t n: Change the timeout to n seconds.
[SNIP]
> Does the -t option wor
33 matches
Mail list logo
