* Martin Radford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What's interesting about their externally visible servers is that they
> don't do ESMTP; they don't advertise that they do it, and they give
> "500 Unknown or unimplemented command" when you send "EHLO" commands.
> I doubt this is Exim's behaviour (but
At Sat Oct 19 16:40:46 2002, Thomas Hurst wrote:
> Demon use a mixture of exim (externally) and MMDF (internally). It's
> probably exim adding the headers since it gets the messages first.
>
> However, exim 4 generates id's that look like:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And I don't think exim
* Justin Mason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Martin Radford said:
>
> > These are Message-IDs generated by my ISP's incoming mail server for
> > mails that don't already have a message id. And that would explain
> > why no one else is seeing these, while I've got a fair number.
> aha. Yep, we ha
At Sat Oct 19 14:45:38 2002, Daniel Liston wrote:
>
> The first received: line with (8.9.3/8.9.3) would give me the impression
> that they are using sendmail. [shrug]
No, it's me that's running Sendmail. Demon deliver mail via SMTP to
their dial-up customers (we have static IPs). Only in the la
Daniel Liston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first received: line with (8.9.3/8.9.3) would give me the impression
> that they are using sendmail. [shrug]
No. That is the customer's mail system. Unlike almost all other
dial-up ISPs, Demon offer SMTP mail delivery to dial-up customers.
--
The first received: line with (8.9.3/8.9.3) would give me the impression
that they are using sendmail. [shrug]
Dan
Nix wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Martin Radford stipulated:
I'm pretty sure it's their own custom MTA. The SMTP connection banner
is:
It used to be a distorted MMDF variant, I
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Martin Radford stipulated:
> I'm pretty sure it's their own custom MTA. The SMTP connection banner
> is:
It used to be a distorted MMDF variant, I think, but that may have
changed in the last couple of years.
--
`It's hard to properly dramatize, say, the domestic effects o
At Thu Oct 17 23:54:05 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
> Martin Radford said:
>
> > These are Message-IDs generated by my ISP's incoming mail server for
> > mails that don't already have a message id. And that would explain
> > why no one else is seeing these, while I've got a fair number.
> >
> > I'l
Martin Radford said:
> These are Message-IDs generated by my ISP's incoming mail server for
> mails that don't already have a message id. And that would explain
> why no one else is seeing these, while I've got a fair number.
>
> I'll keep that as a local rule, since I've never come across a le
At Wed Oct 16 00:43:49 2002, martin wrote:
> > > > Would anyone like to run this rule against their corpora and let me
> > > > know if it might be useful?
> > >
> > > Sorry dude:
> > > 0.0000.0000.0000.000.001.00 THEO_MSGID_TEST
> >
> > same here, I'm afraid. looks like y
At Wed Oct 16 00:09:34 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > > Would anyone like to run this rule against their corpora and let me
> > > know if it might be useful?
> >
> > Sorry dude:
> > 0.0000.0000.0000.000.001.00 THEO_MSGID_TEST
>
> same here, I'm afraid. looks like you'v
Theo Van Dinter said:
> > Would anyone like to run this rule against their corpora and let me
> > know if it might be useful?
>
> Sorry dude:
> 0.0000.0000.0000.000.001.00 THEO_MSGID_TEST
same here, I'm afraid. looks like you've got a lone spammer with
his homegrown too
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 the voices made Martin Radford write:
> I've spotted in the last day or so a possible spam-indicator based on
> the Message-ID of a number of recent spams.
>
> These have the format:
> Message-ID =~ /^<10[0-9]{8}\.[0-9]{7}\.0\@\S+>$/
>
> (i.e ten digits "dot" seven digits "dot
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:07:46PM +0100, Martin Radford wrote:
> These have the format:
> Message-ID =~ /^<10[0-9]{8}\.[0-9]{7}\.0\@\S+>$/
>
> Would anyone like to run this rule against their corpora and let me
> know if it might be useful?
Sorry dude:
OVERALL% SPAM% NONSPAM% S/ORANK
14 matches
Mail list logo
