>...
>List Mail User wrote:
>> Huh? (Lookup "strawman" in a dictionary, please.)
>That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it
>looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you
>presented, as best I can make sense of your posts.
>
>Or are you admitting th
On Sunday, February 19, 2006, 8:07:30 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 07:19:28PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> > 37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
>>
>> Should the ham hit rate of WS really be 7%? That seems rather
>> high. May we ask you to please d
If you wish to stop future mailings, or if you feel you have been
wrongfully placed in our membership, send a blank e mail with No Thanks
in the sub ject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
You can kinda tell the parts of the spam the spammers don't consider
important...
Loren
List Mail User wrote:
> Huh? (Lookup "strawman" in a dictionary, please.)
That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it
looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you
presented, as best I can make sense of your posts.
Or are you admitting that you made
On Sunday 19 February 2006 19:03, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
>>>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>===8<---
>PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
>PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
>
>:0 fw
>>
>...
>List Mail User wrote:
>
>> Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
>> >copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
>>
>>
>> Also, whether cut&paste generates a referral all depends on your
>> browser and the setting used in some
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 07:19:28PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> > 37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
>
> Should the ham hit rate of WS really be 7%? That seems rather
> high. May we ask you to please double check that result?
I was waiting for someone to ask me about
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:07:48 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
I was going to tell you that the stats were real-time, but that's only
true for the SURBL rules. URIBL hits aren't being reused during the
weekly runs since 3.1 doesn't have those rules.
So
You're right.
You have to set a system filter, documentation is a little sparse on that.
This link was helpful
http://ws.edu.isoc.org/workshops/2004/CEDIA/presentaciones/bc/correo/exim/Ex
imPrac.html
It works now, thanks for the reply.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMA
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
This is a potential if a list will add a site on the basis of ONE
spam report. When it takes ten or twenty or more spam reports then
sites will get listed. Your Scotts example is an example of how a
large number of people would be likely to
From: "Andrew Donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a tally of SA scan times at my site from January 14th, rounded
down to the nearest 100 seconds, ignoring those below 1000 seconds:
1000 30
1100 41
1200 14
1300 5
3000 3
3100 35
3200 11
4400 1
4500 3
Those are combined figures from two load-balan
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:07:48 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> I was going to tell you that the stats were real-time, but that's only
> true for the SURBL rules. URIBL hits aren't being reused during the
> weekly runs since 3.1 doesn't have those rules.
> So I did a small tweek and generated my
jdow wrote:
>
> This is a potential if a list will add a site on the basis of ONE
> spam report. When it takes ten or twenty or more spam reports then
> sites will get listed. Your Scotts example is an example of how a
> large number of people would be likely to consider it to be spam
> and complai
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
hits is fine on spam, but
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List Mail User wrote:
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
>copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cut&paste generates a referral all depends on your
browser and the settin
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
hits is fine on spam, but astronomically high scor
List Mail User wrote:
> Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
> >copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
>
>
> Also, whether cut&paste generates a referral all depends on your
> browser and the setting used in some (e.g. Opera
From: "Andrew Donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Gagel:
I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798 seconds
Daryl O'Shea:
Scan times of 798 seconds are probably a result of a bayes expiry. If
auto expiry is enabled (default) I'd disable it and run a manually
expiry as a cron job.
Th
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===8<---
PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
:0 fw
* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA
I will, of course, be there ;)
--j.
--- Forwarded Message
Date:Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:29:10 -0500
From:Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ApacheCon EU 2006
The ApacheCon Planners are pleased to announce that ApacheCon Europe
2006 will be held in Dublin,
Hi!
And again, it's not the over-lap in-and-of-itself that's a problem. It's
when the overlap matches nonspam that problems occur. I don't have any
nonspam samples onhand with surbl overlap. Only surbl/uribl overlap.
We get reports allmost daily, most of them are only listed in one
single lis
Kevin Gagel:
>> I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798 seconds
Daryl O'Shea:
> Scan times of 798 seconds are probably a result of a bayes expiry. If
> auto expiry is enabled (default) I'd disable it and run a manually
> expiry as a cron job.
This is a tally of SA scan times at my si
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Gene Heskett spake:
>>From re-reading a 'man fetchmail' I don't see the fileing ability. It
> only presents it to localhost:25 and apparently sendmail takes it from
> there. The comm thru port 25 is apparently bilateral as it can be told
?! Definitely not.
> to summarily
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Terry Miller wrote:
> I looked this up and can't see where I'm doing anything wrong, but the
> subject is not being rewritten.
You should probably ask this question on the exim-users list. I suspect
(but I am not certain) that exiscan doesn't support the message rewrite
parts
Yousef Raffah a écrit :
> Received: from emailmarketingmasters.com (i538754C0.versanet.de
> [83.135.84.192]) by kansai.savoladns.com (Postfix) with SMTP id
> 7B42810073 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:43:21 +0300 (AST)
you could
- use njabl's dynablock to block the client (83.135.84.1
Evan Platt a écrit :
> At 10:48 PM 2/17/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Today I got a spam message which seems, at least for a newbie like me,
>> succeeded in passing SA for some reason!
>>
>> I'm calling SA through amavisd-new and have my Rules Du Jour updated
>> (manual updates so far)
>>
>> I would like
On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>>===8<---
>>>PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
>>>PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
>>>
>>>:0 fw
>>>
>>>* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
>>>
>>>| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA list. Mail not pr
I just committed version 01.00.06 of this ruleset to:
http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
It should appear within the hour.
Enjoy.
-Doc (SA/SARE/URIBL/SURBL -- Ninja)
Hi!
Yes, but the frequency of overlap in nonspam that I'm seeing at my site
is disturbing.
I've posted examples of this, and they keep getting ignored.
You posted overlap in URIBL and SURBL, thats the same as posting overlap
inside Spamcop and Spamhaus...
This IS a real problem. I am not s
I looked this up and can't see where I'm doing anything wrong, but the
subject is not being rewritten.
Some relevant data:
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
# How many hits before a message is considered spam.
required_score 3.0
# Change the subject of suspected spam
rewrite_header Subject *S
>...
>
Matt,
>> In each case, normal HTML gives a "referrer" page, so no affiliate
>> ID is needed.
>
>Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
>copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cut&paste genera
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >> How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
> >> additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
> >> hits is fine on spam, but astronomically high scores don't really help
> >> SA w
List Mail User wrote:
>>
> In each case, normal HTML gives a "referrer" page, so no affiliate
> ID is needed.
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
(more extensive commentary directe
From: "List Mail User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List Mail User wrote:
winterizewithscotts.com
Scott's lawncare registered user updates.
Matt,
winterizewithscotts.com looks like a case of "affiliate" spamming or
misuse of "sweepstakes" entries.
See:
http://forums.gottadeal.com/archive/index.php
>List Mail User wrote:
>>> winterizewithscotts.com
>>>
>>> Scott's lawncare registered user updates.
>>>
>>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> winterizewithscotts.com looks like a case of "affiliate" spamming or
>> misuse of "sweepstakes" entries.
>> See:
>> http://forums.gottadeal.com/archive/index.p
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm thinking of something like:
score URIBL_SURBL 2.0
score URIBL_AB_SURBL 1.812
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 2.087
score URIBL_OB_SURBL 1.008
score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0.800
score URIBL_SC_SURBL 2.498
score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.140
Whereas I am thinking of increas
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===8<---
PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
:0 fw
* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA list. Mail not processed."
|
:0 fw
*
^TO_:.*([EMAIL PROTECTED]|users\.spamassassin\.apach
37 matches
Mail list logo
