> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:49:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been unsubscribed. (I eventually wrote an LWP
> >crawler to download each of the 87 chunks of the address list from
> >sf.net so I could grep them ;)
I also wrote a note to 'pool.com' suggestin
Yes, thanks alot.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:49:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been unsubscribed. (I eventually wrote an LWP
>crawler to download each of the 87 chunks of the address list from
>sf.net so I could grep them ;)
>
>--j.
>
>
>---
TECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] finally
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been unsubscribed. (I eventually wrote an LWP
> crawler to download each of the 87 chunks of the address list from
> sf.net so I could grep them ;)
>
> --j.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been unsubscribed. (I eventually wrote an LWP
crawler to download each of the 87 chunks of the address list from
sf.net so I could grep them ;)
--j.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does So
David T-G wrote:
> Well, I actually took the "lost cause" tack from your mail, though I
> agree that there are bulk-friendly ISPs and others which just don't
> care.
Nah, didn't really mean to imply a lost cause. I was rather,
optimistically projecting, or wishfully thinking regarding ISP's
con
Pete --
...and then Pete Hanson said...
%
% At 06/09/2002 11:39, David T-G wrote:
% >That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw
...
% >I'd at least look at the spamcop mails.
% >
% >Or am I lost in my own little utopia again?
%
% Probably not. Stuff like spamcop i
At 06/09/2002 11:39, David T-G wrote:
>That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw
>up (even I have accidentally submitted and sent reports for non-spam),
>but at least the addresses that get pulled out are for the right places.
>If I were an ISP I'd be inclined to ign
Pete, et al --
...and then Pete Hanson said...
%
% At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote:
% >David T-G wrote:
% >Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP
% >who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the
% >other, and so need a nudge in the rig
Bryan, et al --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% David T-G wrote:
%
...
% > listen to complaints, though perhaps if enough people complain they
% > might.
% > How, however, are those caring ISPs to chase the spammers around, as
...
% >
% > I'm truly curious, since I would much rather have t
At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote:
>David T-G wrote:
>Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP
>who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the
>other, and so need a nudge in the right direction.
>
>I suppose lately, I've had so much spam on t
David T-G wrote:
> This is an interesting one, though... I'm sure there are some that
> won't
> listen to complaints, though perhaps if enough people complain they
> might.
> How, however, are those caring ISPs to chase the spammers around, as
> you
> put it, if nobody tells 'em about the proble
Bryan, et al --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% David T-G wrote:
%
% > actually report the spammer a la spamcop?
%
% I'm pretty sure neither report spammers. My guess is, ISPs that care do
OK; that lines up with my understanding. That's why I still have a
spamcop forwarding macro in my
David T-G wrote:
> actually report the spammer a la spamcop?
I'm pretty sure neither report spammers. My guess is, ISPs that care do
a good enough job chasing spamers around. The rest won't listen to
complaints. I imagine, reporting them is, seen in the light of day, is
probably pointless.
Br
Bryan --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% dempsey wrote:
%
% > I am not adding anything else for now. I recently have added qmail,
...
% For me, it's not enough just to rid my mailbox of spam. I feel like I
...
% would be best is to contribute to the spammer's demoralization,
I heartily a
dempsey wrote:
> I am not adding anything else for now. I recently have added qmail,
> procmail, spamassassin, and qmail-scanner. I didn't realize what I had
>
> bitten into when I decided to go the spamassassin route. I just need
> to
Fortunately, my ISP already had everything SA needed, so I j
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> Razor isn't that good. Last week sometime, someone was
> auto-reporting all messages to exim-users. The listmaster did come up
>
> with a nice and creative way to identify who the luser was :-). If it
>
> weren't for things like that I might actually use it.
Ind
s one and all,
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Derrick 'dman' Hudson
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Finally got it working...
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:38:07PM -0400, Bry
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:38:07PM -0400, Bryan Hoover wrote:
| dempsey wrote:
|
| > I got the whole enchilada working now. Good bye spam!
| > BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
| Ahh, a great feeling isn't it? If you havn't already, install Razor -
| http://razor.sourceforge.net - and feel good about reporti
dempsey wrote:
> I got the whole enchilada working now. Good bye spam!
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahh, a great feeling isn't it? If you havn't already, install Razor -
http://razor.sourceforge.net - and feel good about reporting the ones
that slip through.
Bryan
--
[Please don't CC me when list posti
I got the whole enchilada working now. Good bye spam! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Olivier Nicole
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Finally got it working...
>
> My guess is Local Delivery Agent (e.g. procmail, deliver, ...).
> The term I've usually seen though is MDA (Mail Delivery Agent).
Very true, I should have used MDA, I think I used LDA because they use
it on procmail list.
Olivier
___
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 04:21:35PM -0500, dempsey wrote:
| I guess short and sweet, I need to know:
|
| 1. What do I put in my .qmail file to invoke procmail.
Ask this on a qmail list. I use exim and can tell you how to plug SA
into exim, but I've never touched qmail. Right now your only prob
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:38:10PM -0500, dempsey wrote:
| Sorry for being ignorant but what is the term LDA?
Local Delivery Agent. The thing that puts the message into a
"folder".
-D
--
"640K ought to be enough for anybody" -Bill Gates, 1981
GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_k
> what is the term LDA?
My fault, I didn't knew like 3 month ago. Local Delivery Agent, the
piece of code that gets a message from your SMTP server and (after
some ossible filtering) put it in users mailbox. Procmail is an LDA
Olivier
SpamAssassin catagorizes messages, Procmail files messages.
This is what I have in my .procmailrc file to file the spam that
spamassassin has tagged.
:0fw
| spamassassin -P
:0e
{
EXITCODE=$?
}
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Flag: YES
caughtspam
Bob
I put in my /etc/procmailrc file to look for the *
^X-Spam-Status: Yes , move spam to a spam dir and then deliver the rest to
~/Maildir/.
Thanks
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Matt Thoene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:54 AM
To: dempsey
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Fi
Nicole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:29 PM
>To: dempsey
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Finally got it working...
>
>
>>I finally got it working and it is tagging email. However, spam is still
>>making it to my inbox. Is ther
07, 2002 9:29 PM
To: dempsey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Finally got it working...
>I finally got it working and it is tagging email. However, spam is still
>making it to my inbox. Is there something else to this I am missing?
SA only tags spam, it is the role of your LDA
Sorry for being ignorant but what is the term LDA?
-Original Message-
From: Olivier Nicole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:29 PM
To: dempsey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Finally got it working...
>I finally got it working and it is tagging em
>I finally got it working and it is tagging email. However, spam is still
>making it to my inbox. Is there something else to this I am missing?
SA only tags spam, it is the role of your LDA to do something with
such email, put it in a separate folder, quarantine it, delete it,
whatever you want.
I finally got it working and it is tagging email. However, spam is still
making it to my inbox. Is there something else to this I am missing?
Thanks
Doug
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 21677 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2002 02:08:23 -
Delivere
31 matches
Mail list logo
