On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 the voices made LuKreme write:
L> Actually,never having used exitcode I really had no idea even what he
L> was trying to do.
We... the blind leading the blind... *grabs a bowl of popcorn*
When does the next show start?
Sowwy... I'm not really a mean person... ;-)
--
For the past cpl of weeks my personal e-mailaccounts' daily been getting 150-
200% of the number of UBE I used to get on a very bad day about 3-4 months ago;
and although I'm pretty sure part of that is me pissing people off with that
speciel kind of charm that's part of my lovely personality, I s
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 the voices made [EMAIL PROTECTED] write:
> Young whipper-snappers. When I started coding we had to enter code through
> front panel switches, and read our output on the console lights - and we
> had to replace at least three vacuum tubes per run. On the newest
> machines, we c
If there is a bondedsender on this list, please send me an e-mail...
I'm testing a rewritten client, and although everything seems to be ok it'd be
nice to get it verified in a non-test environment. =)
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 the voices made Susan Civil-Brown write:
SC> I never downloaded SpamAssassin, so I don't know what it's doing on my
SC> computer. I certainly don't need it as I have a good spam program, and
SC> SpamAssassin tends to screw up messages that have to do with putting things
SC> on
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 the voices made LuKreme write:
L> have they done se>< and secs and sekz already?
Number of hits in the db, and spampoints (0-1):
"sekz" 1 0.000415
"secs" 117 0.092999
"seks" 21 0.511654
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> I keep getting these alert messages that Norton Anitvirus has detected and
ML> qiarantined various viruses. Has anyone else seen these, if so, whats the
ML> best way of blocking them? There doesn't seem to be any common them other
ML>
Interest r=
ates are
at their lowest point in over 40 years! Find out how much money you could =
be saving
by visiting http://freequotes.bz/dev/mort14/";>this Website!=
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 the voices made Michael Moncur write:
MM> Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
MM>
MM> > "seks" is now getting 0.807152 on a "1 = spam and 0 = ham"-scale here, so
MM> > before your e-mail starting messing it up it was a perfect
MM> > spa
BA> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:24:51 - Kevin Anthoney
BA> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BA> > Apologies for top posting, BTW. I'm at work, hence $£@@@#!! Outlook.
http://www.flash.to/oe-quotefix/ >
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
Since this seems to be the show-n-tell week I thought I'd share this beauty...
-- Forwarded message --
Received: from mx3.luth.se (mx3.luth.se [130.240.42.13])
by moon.campus.luth.se (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h17FfUxh015410
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 7 Feb
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 the voices made Jess Anderson write:
JA> Tony Earnshaw:
JA> >Kelly Annette Jameson:
JA> >
JA> > > Does anyone know how to setup Spam Assassin to automatically count all
JA> > > messages over a certain size as spam so they can be bounced back?
JA> >
JA> > Isn't this something you
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 the voices made Jeremy Turner write:
JT> On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 13:42, Lance W. Haverkamp wrote:
JT> > I don't think I'll be using Spamassassin any longer. I can't imagine ANY
JT> > spam filter program not catching that email.
JT>
JT> >From what I've read on this list and on spa
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Earnshaw write:
TE> If there had been a you-must-expect-spam-from-our-posters warning on
TE> this list, I would have expected it as something natural. As it was, it
TE> took me by surprise. In future it won't :-)
This is a list about a product that battle
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 the voices made Matt Kettler write:
MK> (hmm, I see this tempting Tony and several others to send me a bunch of
MK> non-spam emails in a language I don't speak... hmm)
Vad får dig att tro det? ;-)
Honestly, I don't have much non-english e-mails that either aren't personal o
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 the voices made Michael Moncur write:
MM> For what it's worth, Joshua Goodman from Microsoft Research mentioned this
^
Need I say more? ;-)
MM> technique in the Spam conference and said it was "one of his favorites". I
MM>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 the voices made Martin Schroeder write:
MS> [Please limit your line length to <=70 chars/line]
MS>
MS> On 2003-01-15 22:42:07 -, Stephane wrote:
MS> > exists today disappears ? With opensource you cannot have a
MS> > contractual engagement to provide support or updates, nor
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 the voices made Nick Marino write:
NM> So for that I appologize. But when someone is learning and trying to
NM> understand new things please don't be so rude when you respond to them you
NM> are more than likely to get a rude response back.
Just take a look at what you've wri
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 the voices made Nick Marino write:
NM> I asked for help not your opinion on my posting methods.
http://jump.to/oe-quotefix >
# Description
#
# OE-QuoteFix will extend the functionality of MS Outlook Express in numerous
# ways! Its main purpose is to modify message compositio
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 the voices made Nick Marino write:
NM> It is only doing it to some HTML messages other come out fine.
and I told you that with this problem with the server that I mentioned it
would only do this to _some_ HTML-messages! Some, not all, only some.
Did you bother to check if t
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 the voices made Nick Marino write:
NM> From: "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NM> > It could be the server... I've had some problem with servers doing
NM> > base64-decoding, problems which could maybe result in problems like you
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 the voices made Nick Marino write:
NM> I have been having problems with SA stripping CRLF and just putting in LF in
NM> some not all email going through my server.
NM>
NM> It seems to only do it to mail that is in HTML format but it doesn't do it
NM> to all HTML emails.
It co
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 the voices made Vivek Khera write:
VK> > "JM" == Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VK>
VK> >> Well written, good content, and industry specific. Also simply having a real
VK> >> email address to reply back is good.
VK>
VK> JM> Actually -- that's a very good point -- r
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 the voices made Andrew M. Hoying write:
AMH> > The spamlist (http://basic.wirehub.nl/spamlist-extended.txt, 3,5 MB)
AMH> > is updated every hour. If you like, you can just use the domain names
AMH> > by grepping "JUNK$" from http://basic.wirehub.nl/spamlist.txt.
I did a quick
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 the voices made Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder write:
ADvB> They probably signed any number of NDAs during the negotiation, so
ADvB> warning the community before the deal was complete was obviously not
ADvB> possible. A short explanation to the list at the time when the de
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 the voices made Jason Levine write:
JL> Where else are the lists archived online? I've always just read the list
JL> on the SourceForge archives, which truly don't have any messages to any of
JL> the SA lists since 1/7/03 in the morning; I just signed up for sa-talk
JL> today s
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 the voices made Jason Levine write:
JL> I'm just wondering if the NAI acquisition of Deersoft killed the mailing
JL> lists; there hasn't been a post to any of the lists mirrored on
JL> SourceForge since 9:34 AM on 1/7/2003.
Nope, it's business as usual nowadays. =)
--
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 the voices made Copeland, Mary R write:
CMR> But I still have my question about how the addresses I've added to my
CMR> "blacklist" can contribute to updating the spam filters database.
They can't; SA doesn't focus on blacklisted addresses, instead it works by
looking at
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 the voices made Malte S. Stretz write:
MSS> On Tuesday 07 January 2003 20:16 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
MSS> >[...]
MSS> > What NetAss can do, via their employees running this project, is to
MSS> > change the license somewhat... which won't hurt a
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 the voices made Theo Van Dinter write:
TVD> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
TVD> > continues. Nobody can buy an open source project and make it closed source
TVD> > without _all_ it's contributors agreeing on a license change. I for my own
TVD> >
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Duncan Findlay write:
DF> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:32:57PM -0500, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
DF> > Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DF> > will be named...
DF> >
DF> > McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DF> >
DF> > And they
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Diffenderfer, Randy write:
DR> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DR> will be named...
DR>
DR> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DR>
DR> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
DR> thesaur
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Justin Mason write:
JM> well, looks like someone's updated their scanner already ;)
Too bad they could code quicker than they could think. =/
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Jerry Rasmussen write:
JR> How do you configure SpamAssassin to return spam to the sender?
Impossible, both the returning and the configuring SA to do it part.
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Ray Dzek write:
RD> Umm...Since this thread started on another list, could somebody please
RD> explain, in english, the significance of the munged header?
Just reread the first one to this list, it was by me and it included the URL
to the story.
The significa
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Tobias von Koch write:
TvK> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=1997874
It makes sense; it's a positive thing for both NetAss and Deersoft... the
community OTOH... who knows; most likely a lot of PR resulting in "how can I
use t
These "HTML-comment in spam sign"-thingies are spreading... =(
Received: from www.airconworld.net ([210.114.228.88])
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: ±èÈ£Áø<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 03:38:25 +0900
Content-Type: text/html; charset="euc-kr"
Subject:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Hoyle write:
TH> I'm more worried about what happens when a virus starts using this - how
TH> many mailers
TH> are able to block executable attachments when the mime data is munged this
TH> badly?
What really worries me is what happens when people start re
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Justin Mason write:
JM> (Open proxies are easy to test for automatically upon mail receipt,
JM> you see. Might even make a good SpamAssassin test some day, as long
JM> as we could rig up some kind of online test-result collator so each
JM> site only gets tested
(Somewhat stolen from a posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the procmail-list)
http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/viruses/indepth/junkmail.xml >
a header like that:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=TFICLMGJ
could be altered to that:
-
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 the voices made Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder write:
ADvB> I find bogofilter does a very good job currently, no false positives at
ADvB> all; and most false negatives get caught by sa and are fed back to
ADvB> bogofilter so it can learn...
Take a closer look at those fa
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 the voices made Chris Santerre write:
CS> Blocking spam goes like so
CS>
CS> -SMTP(access bd, RBLS, simple header checks, ect)
CS> -Procmail
CS> -SA
CS> -MUA filter
CS> -Delete key :-)
One mustn't forget that one must apply the same kind of logic when one is
writing its pr
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> I deleted the exit code for now, but I'm interested in fixing the
ML> permission denied message so it doesn't bounce back. Would you have any
ML> ideas about how to do this? I guess that's a question for the Procmail
ML> mailing list,
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 the voices made Daniel Quinlan write:
DQ> "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DQ>
DQ> > Has there been any confirmed cases of spammers using
DQ> > In-Reply-To/References-headers (to avoid spamfilters)?
DQ> >
DQ> > I
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:54 PM Tony L. Svanstrom
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ML> >> 0
ML> > * ^X-Rot-Version:
ML> > {
ML> > EXITCODE=77
ML> > :0
ML> >
On Sat, 27 Dec 2002 the voices made Andrew write:
A> This may be a duplicate, but I saw it on Slashdot. MIT is holding a spam
A> conference on Jan 17th,2003. Details are at
A> http://www.spamconference.org.
Check the speakerlist and you'll see that there are two people that will talk
about SpamA
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Vivek Khera write:
VK> >>>>> "TLS" == Tony L Svanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VK>
VK> TLS> I want to add one thing: SA could actually be a weakness...
VK>
VK> TLS> As one rule among many this sure spamsi
On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of rules with
> different scores, then SA is way superior, but if you've got a simple "hit this
> one and die die die"-thing then why
I'm an idiot... just ignore this. =)
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Tony L. Svanstrom write:
TLS> If it wasn't for me having the attentionspan of an over-caffeinated, sugar-
TLS> hyped 3 year-old I might have remembered to make the point that an XML-based
TLS> stand
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> Is there an advantage to using one or the other (procmail recipe vs SA
ML> rule)? It seems odd to hard code such things into procmail, IMO. Seems
ML> like SA rules are easier to implement, change or remove. For now, I'll use
ML> this
If it wasn't for me having the attentionspan of an over-caffeinated, sugar-
hyped 3 year-old I might have remembered to make the point that an XML-based
standard not tied to the firmware of the AP and created by open source-people
easier can find its way into APs, then the other way around; and th
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> How would I block it at the MTA? I assume you're talking about Sendmail.
ML> What about a concise rule for SA? I'm extremely poor with regexp and any
ML> help would be greatly appreciated. Would this do it:
ML>
ML>
ML> X-Rot: =~ /zvx
I don't really want to admit this, but some time late last night (local time,
earlier than late if you're in the US) I managed to seriously screw up my
mailfiltering... meaning that if I've ever sent you an e-mail and/or you
replied to something I'd written, then late yesterday/today your e-mails
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write:
ML> X-Rot-Version: zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg
ML>
ML> Could this ever be used for legitimate uses? Also - what sort of rule
ML> would be best to blacklist an email with this in the header? Should it
ML> just be points or should it be blacklisted
Has there been any confirmed cases of spammers using
In-Reply-To/References-headers (to avoid spamfilters)?
Ie, using those headers to make their spam look like
a reply to something you've written on some list/news-
group.
/t
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge tow
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 the voices made [EMAIL PROTECTED] write:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> Unitedmedia seems to be a reasonably big syndicate.
> The Dilbert Newsletter is opt-in only.
> Many people subscribe to it.
This is clearly a won't fix, because real geeks either sitescrape or let
procmail
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 the voices made Justin Mason write:
JM> If anyone can suggest others added by other MTAs, it'd be much appreciated.
With some luck you can get the env-address out of one of the Received-headers.
/t
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards free
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 the voices made James D. Stallings write:
> Does anyone know if there is a way that I can have SA send a
> message that is detected as spam back to the spammer stating
> you are not welcome and this message is blocked...??
1. SA doesn't send nor delete e-mails, it just tags '
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Leone write:
> However, 90+% of the time, you want the reply to be public; that's why you're
> on a public mailing list, no? So why set the defaults to cater to a special
> case, in stead of the majority case?
Exactly, which is why I, on my own lists, alw
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 the voices made Duncan Findlay write:
> Funny, I don't want people to CC me on replies (or even address them
> To me). That's why I'm not in my Reply-To or Mail-Followup-To: header.
> Yet, strangely enough, I do get CC'd most of the time.
It's standard behavior when you reply
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 the voices made Justin Mason write:
> (a) it lets legit publishers avoid relatively-obvious trouble areas
> (like talking about spam laws etc.)
Like everyone already could do, but only spammers bothered to do.
> (b) it lures spammers into a false sense of security, as
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Burger write:
> Out of curiosity..I've been rejecting with a code of 550...what's the
> difference between 550 and 553?
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt > #4.2.2:
# 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
# (e.g., mai
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > BTW, just met with some researchers in Trinity College here in Dublin for
> > lunch, an AI guy and a distributed-systems peer-to-peer guy, they're
> > *both* looking at starting anti-spam projects.
> >
> > So, wondering -- does anyone have good ideas for new systems in tho
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 the voices made Jeremy Zawodny write:
> Well, it's not *trivial* but I don't think it's huge either. You need
> to scan all outgoing mail and maintain a list of destination
> addresses. Then integrate that into a site-wide SA whitelist.
>
> Am I missing some complexity?
Wel
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 the voices made John Rudd write:
> 1) Have your mail client put a copy of all outgoing messages into a
> particular folder (like "Sent"). (most clients do this already, so its
> no big deal)
>
> 2) Write a program which parses that file out and adds those addresses
> to a file,
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 the voices made Steve Evans write:
> Keep a database with every address that e-mail is sent to. Have a rule
> with a negative value that checks that database on incoming mail.
>
> I find it quite unlikely that any address that someone would send a
> message to would ever be se
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 the voices made Justin Mason write:
> Still, it'd be nice to know *what* they plan to do with it, how they plan
> to make it available to other antispam filter devvers without giving it
> all away to spammers, and if they have any plans for QAing the submitted
> spam -- it's ve
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 the voices made Bob Amen write:
> Philip Mak wrote:
> > I wonder what would happen if the spammer had sent "X-Spam-Flag: NO"
> > as part of the header in the spam message. Would it fool
> > procmail/maildrop?
> I doubt it would fool procmail.
It won't fool procmail.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 the voices made Rick Macdougall write:
> phpsa.php is included with spamassassin and only requires fixing a few
> typos.
Hey, please remind me to keep my keys of the keyboard the next time I want to
write a less than helpful e-mail (ignore the e-mail I sent about a minute ago
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 the voices made Nathan Henderson write:
> What would be the best way to go about setting up an html "control panel"
> for configuring whitelists and such?
Learning how to program CGI-related things would be a great start. =)
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem!
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 the voices made Jan Korger write:
> But what if spammers do randomly add guessed domain names to their lists?
> Whatif someone sells guessed email addresses to spammers? My point is, if
> spammers do add wrong addresses to their dbs and don't even remove them if
> there's no MX
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 the voices made Steve Thomas write:
> | what about changing the tld to .invalid?
>
> Too easy for the spammers to spot. I'd rather they waste their time and
> resources and add pollution to their address lists than discard the address
> from the get-go.
Do both... I don't wan
> http://javascript.internet.com/
> Use this script in HTML documents where you would place an email address.
>
>