er... that should have been "from or to" not "from or two".
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm Tungsten T
handheld. Power & Color in a compact size!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0002en
> From: Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 2002-11-25 02:29:35 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> > Doesn't matter. If the sender address was false information, then they
> > can't appeal the blacklisting (and I don't want them to), but I'll stop
> > getting spam from that address (and typically
On 2002-11-25 02:29:35 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> Doesn't matter. If the sender address was false information, then they
> can't appeal the blacklisting (and I don't want them to), but I'll stop
> getting spam from that address (and typically the addresses have been
> repetitive). What matters
> I don't believe this. I've been using SA for quite awhile and I can't
> remember the last FP I got. So, fairly recently, I changed my procmail
> setup so that I keep those that score between 5 and 9, everything over
nine
> goes out the window. About 54% of the spam I get scores more than 9.
Rich Duzenbury ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/25/02 at 18:43:
>
> >
> >Auto-bouncing spam also auto-bounces FPs, and you lose legitmate mail. Tag
> >everything with SA, and no need to change addresses; simply route all
> >tagged mail to a special folder, which you check every few days.
Auto-bouncing spam also auto-bounces FPs, and you lose legitmate mail. Tag
everything with SA, and no need to change addresses; simply route all
tagged mail to a special folder, which you check every few days. You never
lose any mail, and you get to retreive any FPs, and you don't get to see
the
Jon Gabrielson said:
> I've heard this more than once, but the alternative to automatically
> bouncing mail is to change your email address every couple
> months which in effect starts automatically bouncing the mail
> anyways. I really don't see the difference.
Auto-bouncing spam also auto-boun
> "RH" == Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> * Maxime Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > If you wish to not receive the spam at all, and let the spammer know
>> > about it, implement a spam filter in your SMTP engine and 550 the
>> > sender. I use qpsmtpd, and it's spamassassin p
Vivek Khera said the following on 25/11/02 16:10:
"MS" == Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
MS> Automatically bouncing spam is
> "MS" == Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
>> Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
>> explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
MS> Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
I don't think it
gt; From: Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null
>
> On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> > Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
> > explaining how I bo
* Maxime Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If you wish to not receive the spam at all, and let the spammer know
> > about it, implement a spam filter in your SMTP engine and 550 the
> > sender. I use qpsmtpd, and it's spamassassin plugin. It's very easy to
> > extend it to 550 any high scoring sp
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:57:51AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I get about 10 bounce messages a day from invalid email addresses. I
> can't imagine what I would get if spam filters started auto-bouncing
> too. All of these are from spam engines which have used my email address.
Another point i
John Rudd said the following on 25/11/02 12:01:
If you wish to not receive the spam at all, and let the spammer know
about it, implement a spam filter in your SMTP engine and 550 the
sender. I use qpsmtpd, and it's spamassassin plugin. It's very easy to
extend it to 550 any high scoring spam (b
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:57:51AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> If you wish to not receive the spam at all, and let the spammer know
> about it, implement a spam filter in your SMTP engine and 550 the
> sender. I use qpsmtpd, and it's spamassassin plugin. It's very easy to
> extend it to 550 an
> From: Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The problems associated with bouncing spam aren't your problems - they
> are problems you inflict on the person you bounce to (which almost
> always isn't the spammer).
>
> I get about 10 bounce messages a day from invalid email addresses. I
> can't
Matt Sergeant said:
> If you wish to not receive the spam at all, and let the spammer know
> about it, implement a spam filter in your SMTP engine and 550 the
> sender. I use qpsmtpd, and it's spamassassin plugin. It's very easy to
> extend it to 550 any high scoring spam (but I don't do that
John Rudd said the following on 25/11/02 08:15:
I haven't had any
problems.
The problems associated with bouncing spam aren't your problems - they
are problems you inflict on the person you bounce to (which almost
always isn't the spammer).
I get about 10 bounce messages a day from invalid em
On Monday, Nov 25, 2002, at 01:29 US/Pacific, Martin Schroeder wrote:
On 2002-11-25 00:15:11 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
On Sunday, Nov 24, 2002, at 17:19 US/Pacific, Martin Schroeder wrote:
Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
Well, if google says it, it must be true! :-)
On 2002-11-25 00:15:11 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 24, 2002, at 17:19 US/Pacific, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> >Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
> >
>
> Well, if google says it, it must be true! :-)
>
> I automatically bounce spam with a warning (if they're not
On Sunday, Nov 24, 2002, at 17:19 US/Pacific, Martin Schroeder wrote:
On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
Well, if googl
On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
> explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
>
> So, what that is saying is that if the subject does not contain 332762
> then send it to /etc/smrsh/bounceSPAM $4 $2
>
correct.
>
> (I have no idea what the 4th and 2nd argument would be).
>
The 4th and 2nd argument happen to be username and email address
respectively(from the arguments pa
Jon Gabrielson wrote:
>
> On Sunday 24 November 2002 18:32, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> > Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> > > It seems to be a common question to ask how to
> > > /dev/null high scoring spam. This should probably
> > > be in the FAQs (as well as a few safer methods).
> > > Anyways, i thought
On Sunday 24 November 2002 18:32, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> > It seems to be a common question to ask how to
> > /dev/null high scoring spam. This should probably
> > be in the FAQs (as well as a few safer methods).
> > Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
> > expl
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> http://www.directfreight.com/howtobouncespamwithprocmail.txt
Spambouncer also provides a similar procmail-based solution.
However, most of the spam I get have forged return addresses.
Employing a method such as this can litter the
Jon Gabrielson wrote:
>
> It seems to be a common question to ask how to
> /dev/null high scoring spam. This should probably
> be in the FAQs (as well as a few safer methods).
> Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
> explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
> high scoring spam,
27 matches
Mail list logo
