Ray Dzek wrote:
> Just as a side note...
>
> I am a charter customer. I have spoken with their techincal assistance
> many times, and at various levels, for myself and on behalf of others I
> have tried to assist. They are by far the most incompetent ISP I have
> ever dealt with. They only have
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>> that's nothing like the defaults.
>>
>
> My (uncommented) settings are:
> report_safe 0
> trusted_networks 192.168/16
> lock_method flock
> required_score 5.0
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_auto_learn 1
> bayes_ignore_header X-Bogosity
> bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
> baye
Marc,
Overall good answers... but about six months ago, one of my users was joe
jobbed in "biblical proportions"... in this case, the spammer chose this
one "real" address and that spammer must have either sent the bots this
info, or pre-programmed the bots. When the spam run started, this pa
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> > (2) On the other hand, consider the scenerio where a single e-mail
> > address is Joe Jobbed in millions of spams... and that address is
> > valid (and this is quite common as worms play musical chair with
> > infected computers
Rob McEwen wrote:
Marc Perkel said:
If someone is sending email using one of my domains I want people
verifying the sender addresses. That way spam that is spoofing my
domains won't get delivered.
Marc:
(1) Sure, this covers spoofing where the alias is invalid for that
domain, but it does
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 at 13:42 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Duane Hill wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 at 13:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Further, how does check_sender_mx_access differ from Sender Address
Verification (SAV)? (where SAV is an INCREDIBLY bad idea, and a blight
Marc Perkel said:
If someone is sending email using one of my domains I want people
verifying the sender addresses. That way spam that is spoofing my domains
won't get delivered.
Marc:
(1) Sure, this covers spoofing where the alias is invalid for that domain,
but it doesn't do anything about
> If
> someone is sending email using one of my domains I want people verifying
> the sender addresses.
So do you run your servers with VRFY enabled?
--
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief
Pooserville.com
"Jon, the CIA's credibility has never been lower. Crazy people no longer
believe the CIA is imp
John Rudd wrote:
mouss wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Rense Buijen wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:19 +0200:
I didn't know that a backup MX can lead to more trouble then having
just one
Unfortunately, backup MXes attract spammers :-(. You could at least
add some more backup MXs (that
Nikolay Shopik wrote:
On 8/26/2007 12:08 AM, John Rudd wrote:
mouss wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Rense Buijen wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:19 +0200:
I didn't know that a backup MX can lead to more trouble then having
just one
Unfortunately, backup MXes attract spammers :-(. You cou
mouss wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Rense Buijen wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:19 +0200:
I didn't know that a backup MX can lead to more trouble then having
just one
Unfortunately, backup MXes attract spammers :-(. You could at least
add some more backup MXs (that don't exist) on to
Duane Hill wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 at 13:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Further, how does check_sender_mx_access differ from Sender Address
Verification (SAV)? (where SAV is an INCREDIBLY bad idea, and a blight
upon the internet)
(meaning: if check_sender_mx_access is just the
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 at 13:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Further, how does check_sender_mx_access differ from Sender Address
Verification (SAV)? (where SAV is an INCREDIBLY bad idea, and a blight upon
the internet)
(meaning: if check_sender_mx_access is just the postfix name for SA
mouss wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Rense Buijen wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:19 +0200:
I didn't know that a backup MX can lead to more trouble then having
just one
Unfortunately, backup MXes attract spammers :-(. You could at least
add some more backup MXs (that don't exist) on top
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mouss wrote on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:51:07 +0200:
check_sender_mx_access.
this won't detect MX hostnames resolving to valid but not reachable IP
no.s.
sure, which may lead to the creation of a dedicated blacklist.
Mouss wrote on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:51:07 +0200:
> check_sender_mx_access.
this won't detect MX hostnames resolving to valid but not reachable IP
no.s.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jonn R Taylor wrote on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:30:22 -0500:
What even more
interesting is that they block 25 out going. So I am not sure why we all
see so much spam from them.
The spam is comming from *.dhcp.*.*.charter.com. Obviously, there's no such
blockage. I r
report the spam to AOL.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
What's the problem? "Great Chinese Proverb" is genuine enough, isn't it?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Rense Buijen wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:19 +0200:
I didn't know that a backup MX can lead to more trouble then having just
one
Unfortunately, backup MXes attract spammers :-(. You could at least add
some more backup MXs (that don't exist) on top of that, that
Rick Zeman wrote:
I doubt that spammers have gotten sophisticated enough to have lists of
of Middle Eastern names with US-based addresses. There's something else
going on, methinks.
It is possible that most of these addresses were found in the address
book of some [EMAIL PROTECTED] by a
Hello,
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:38:13 -0400, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>>
>> I went for the report_safe 0 option but what I would really like to get
> is
>> also the spam YES/NO flag in it.
>>
>> I have X-Spam-Score: 22.7 (++)
>> X-Spam-Re
22 matches
Mail list logo
