On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:15:35 -0400
Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:03:01 +0100
> RW articulated:
>
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
> > Jerry wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
> > > RW articulated:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
> > > > Bruce Cran
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:53:39AM -0700, Robison, Dave wrote:
>
> This has gotten to the point of the ridiculous now. Comparing a few spam to
> wife beating and serial killers? That's just patently offensive, quite
> frankly.
>
> All this bike shedding and crosstalk has produced far more pointl
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 10:53 -0700, Robison, Dave wrote:
> All this bike shedding and crosstalk has produced far more pointless
> email than all the spam I've gotten from this list in the last month.
I don't know if those mails where pointless, but there were much mails
and I only read two or three
On 05/17/2013 05:45, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
>
>> It seems to me that the level of spam in list is pretty much
>> negligible.
>
> That would be a subjective statement. It is like asking how many times
> you have to slap your wife before you are considered a wife beater.
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:03:01 +0100
RW articulated:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
> > RW articulated:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
> > > Bruce Cran wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of peo
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
> RW articulated:
>
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
> > Bruce Cran wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of people who post
> > > messages "PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!!"
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
RW articulated:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
> Bruce Cran wrote:
>
> > On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
> > > Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that
> > > he/she could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list
> > > then I
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
> > Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that he/she
> > could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list then I
> > would seriously doubt that they would possess the necessary skil
On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that he/she
could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list then I would
seriously doubt that they would possess the necessary skills to
install and run FreeBSD to begin with. Lets be honest here.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:18:18PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> I'm a big fan of _not_ having to subscribe to a list to get a quick
> hand with a one off problem (obviously not this one!)- otherwise too
> many lists get subscribed to, oodles of messages come in which you
> can't do anything about and so
On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:05:33 +0100
Bruce Cran articulated:
> There have been some discussions about this in the past.
> freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may
> be unfamiliar with mailing lists being put off posting to it.
Seriously? If some potential poster were s
Hi,
On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:05:33 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep
> > spam out.
>
> There have been some discussions about this in the past.
> freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep spam out.
>
> There have been some discussions about this in the past.
> freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may be
> unfamiliar with
On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep spam out.
There have been some discussions about this in the past.
freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may be
unfamiliar with mailing lists being put off
On May 14, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Da Rock
wrote:
> I'm a big fan of _not_ having to subscribe to a list to get a quick hand with
> a one off problem (obviously not this one!)- otherwise too many lists get
> subscribed to, oodles of messages come in which you can't do anything about
> and so forth
On 05/12/13 22:04, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Restricting mailing lists to "subscribers only" has been a best
practice since the last century. It's a very good anti-spam tactic.
2. However, doing so -- for a list run via Mailman, like this one --
does not pose a significant impediment for non-subs
ail addresses will be in twc.com domain.
But I use the same From: address.
I switched my email address on this list because Insight Cable, but I believe
not Time Warner Cable, uses synacor.com for spam filtering, and messages are
deleted when synacor.com's software flags it as spam, and the
1. Restricting mailing lists to "subscribers only" has been a best
practice since the last century. It's a very good anti-spam tactic.
2. However, doing so -- for a list run via Mailman, like this one --
does not pose a significant impediment for non-subscribers. By default,
Mailman will hold tr
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:39:31 +0100
Steve O'Hara-Smith articulated:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200
> "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote:
> > > On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
> > > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> > >
> > > > If list write access was changed
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> Hi,
> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
> > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> >
> > > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
> > > - List could silently discard such spam.
> > > - Postma
> I'm curious how much spam you get through this list.
>
> Just counted, and I have about 2 Spams per week for the last month,
> that's more than usual.
Personaly I'm on ~ 47 freebsd lists or so my MH dirs + procmail
filter boxes suggest, so when someone spams multiple lists with the
same spam it
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200, Julian H. Stacey
wrote:
Hi questions@ ( spammer not cc'd )
Reference:
From: Aaron Seligman
Reply-to: aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:59:07 + (UTC)
Subject:Re: Display & Video Campaigns
Hi,
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
> "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
> > - List could silently discard such spam.
> > - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less work.
> > - Less i
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
> - List could silently discard such spam.
> - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less work.
> - Less individual need to select spam phrases to copy
Hi,
> From: Erich Dollansky
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:33:47 +0700
Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
> "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> >
> > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
>
> some lists are like this anyway. Why are no
Hi,
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
some lists are like this anyway. Why are not all like this?
I notice that my postings get delayed and obviously check when I use
by accident my real e-mail address.
Eric
Most of the spam I've seen get through is actually obvious from the
subject line. I've seen more posts by people who weren't subscribed and
asked to be cc'd than I've seen spam. Making the list subscribers only
would only hinder the the lucky spammers, and stop more people genuinely
asking fo
Hi questions@ ( spammer not cc'd )
Reference:
> From: Aaron Seligman
> Reply-to: aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
> Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:59:07 + (UTC)
> Subject: Re: Display & Video Campaigns-Inventory Needed
> Message-id: <1368039547.0568389241738...@
J. Johnston wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if anyone knew of a good howto, or some tips for
> filtering spam using dspam in a setup where virtual users (various
> domains) are stored in LDAP. Currently we hand off email to dspam in
> the filter stage and dspam hands it back into postfix as lmt
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone knew of a good howto, or some tips for
filtering spam using dspam in a setup where virtual users (various
domains) are stored in LDAP. Currently we hand off email to dspam in the
filter stage and dspam hands it back into postfix as lmtp, the problem
with this
> My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up
> in an Courier imap directories.
I am using SpamAssassin (from the ports) inside procmail that
quarantine every suspect messages and send a daily summary:
http://www.cs.ait.ac.th/laboratory/email/quarantine.shtml
Best re
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 04:54:22PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
>
> My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up in
> an Courier imap directories.
>
> I'm thinking of going with something like SpamBouncer (procmail filter).
> Anyone use that
My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up
in an Courier imap directories.
I'm thinking of going with something like SpamBouncer (procmail filter).
Anyone use that before? Any other spam filtering that might work better
with this
On Wednesday May 30, 2007 at 07:34:35 (AM) DeadMan Xia wrote:
> hope every1 doing fine well i m using QMAIL for email services. I have also
> installed SPAM ASSASINS while installing Qmail. Now i m getting too much
> SPAM in every mailbox of my domain.
>
> Kindly help me out and tell me wha
Hi everybody,
hope every1 doing fine well i m using QMAIL for email services. I have also
installed SPAM ASSASINS while installing Qmail. Now i m getting too much
SPAM in every mailbox of my domain.
Kindly help me out and tell me what shld i do. which spam filter is should
use and how to configu
35 matches
Mail list logo
