> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 15:20 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this particular
> > whitelist:
> >
> > http://www.emailreg.org/
On 15.10.08 22:03, Richard Doyle wrote:
> Their confirmation message scored on DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS, WHOIS_PRIVPROT
> and
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 15:20 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this particular
> whitelist:
>
> http://www.emailreg.org/
Their confirmation message scored on DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS, WHOIS_PRIVPROT
and MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY, adding 6.9 points to the score!
Richard Ozer wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> We've been getting quite a bit of spam with the following header:
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: David Samuels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: New Job! -2UigK
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:16:03 +
>
> I've been trying to
Greetings,
We've been getting quite a bit of spam with the following header:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: David Samuels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New Job! -2UigK
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:16:03 +
I've been trying to write a rule that looks at the From: li
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, October 16, 2008 00:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Create a Reply-To: header when posting if you want a different behavior.
>>
>
> dont suggest that :)
>
>
Smarta..
:-)
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, October 16, 2008 00:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Create a Reply-To: header when posting if you want a different behavior.
>>
>
> dont suggest that :)
>
>
Why, it's the proper, RFC compliant way to do it. (and mind you, the
document out on the web is "Repl
On Thu, October 16, 2008 00:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Create a Reply-To: header when posting if you want a different behavior.
dont suggest that :)
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:55 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > You can always do a relative score adjust.. SA supports that you know:
> >
> > score URIBL_BLACK (1.5)
> >
> > Will take whatever the existing score is and add 1.5 to it.
>
> ... but this doesn't work in rule channel
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, October 15, 2008 18:05, mouss wrote:
>
>
>> Don't trust my words. check the archives:
>>
>> - SA: Justin Mason, Matt Kettler, John Hardin, ...
>> - postfix: Wietse (yes, the author of postfix)
>> - dovecot: Timo (yes, the author of dovecot)
>> - take a look at the
Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this particular
whitelist:
http://www.emailreg.org/
They do provide a sample SpamAssassin config at the bottom of the
"Instructions" tab, with one minor error:
describe RCVD_IN_EMAILREG_0D
They need to remove the "D" from the end of the "desc
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> You can always do a relative score adjust.. SA supports that you know:
>>
>> score URIBL_BLACK (1.5)
>>
>> Will take whatever the existing score is and add 1.5 to it.
>
> ... but this doesn't work in rule channels pulled in by sa-update. :(
>
> (You *can
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> You can always do a relative score adjust.. SA supports that you know:
>>
>> score URIBL_BLACK (1.5)
>>
>> Will take whatever the existing score is and add 1.5 to it.
>
> ... but this doesn't work in rule channels pulled in by sa-update. :(
>
> (You *can
Matt Kettler wrote:
You can always do a relative score adjust.. SA supports that you know:
score URIBL_BLACK (1.5)
Will take whatever the existing score is and add 1.5 to it.
... but this doesn't work in rule channels pulled in by sa-update. :(
(You *can* have "score RULE newvalue" entries
Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> DO NOT SEND ME CCs AGAIN or I will DoS your mailbox too! OK?
you may need to fix your system. it's apparently resending the same
message again.
and again, I did not CC you. OK?
>
> I have NOT REQUESTED A Carbon Copy.
>
> Peoples sending me hundreds of unneeded C
On Wed, October 15, 2008 18:05, mouss wrote:
> Don't trust my words. check the archives:
>
> - SA: Justin Mason, Matt Kettler, John Hardin, ...
> - postfix: Wietse (yes, the author of postfix)
> - dovecot: Timo (yes, the author of dovecot)
> - take a look at the ietf-smtp archives. some names? Jo
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Wed, October 15, 2008 17:53, mouss wrote:
>> Benny Pedersen a écrit :
>>> why should internet be so diffrent then the snail mail ?
>> oh no. if "they" hear you, we'll have as much snail mail spam and phone
>> spam! BTW I do get a lot more phone spam now.
>
> you paid
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Wed, October 15, 2008 17:03, mouss wrote:
>> you'll find that knowledgeable members do Cc.
>
> lies
>
Don't trust my words. check the archives:
- SA: Justin Mason, Matt Kettler, John Hardin, ...
- postfix: Wietse (yes, the author of postfix)
- dovecot: Timo (yes, t
On Wed, October 15, 2008 17:53, mouss wrote:
> Benny Pedersen a écrit :
>> why should internet be so diffrent then the snail mail ?
> oh no. if "they" hear you, we'll have as much snail mail spam and phone
> spam! BTW I do get a lot more phone spam now.
you paid there call ? :)
all free services
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Wed, October 15, 2008 11:32, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
>> I pay 0.10 Euro/MByte and my current damage (since Friday last week) is
>> already over 3000 Euro because I was not @home and my Intranet Server
>> has tried to download my regular mail...
>
> so is life w
On Wed, October 15, 2008 17:03, mouss wrote:
> you'll find that knowledgeable members do Cc.
lies
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Wed, October 15, 2008 11:36, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> DO NOT SEND ME CCs AGAIN or I will DoS your mailbox too! OK?
why did you self send this msg cc ? :(
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Wed, October 15, 2008 11:32, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I pay 0.10 Euro/MByte and my current damage (since Friday last week) is
> already over 3000 Euro because I was not @home and my Intranet Server
> has tried to download my regular mail...
so is life when the postman newer got paid, blo
Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> DO NOT SEND ME CCs AGAIN
When did I CC you?
# grep -i "linux4michelle" /var/log/maillog.3
# grep -i "linux4michelle" /var/log/maillog.2
# grep -i "linux4michelle" /var/log/maillog.1
# grep -i "linux4michelle" /var/log/maillog.0
but you did CC me:
# grep -i "michell
On Donnerstag, 4. September 2008 ram wrote:
> I have been using SA for english mails all along
>
> If I want to use SA for german mails , what are the rulesets I should
> use. I have seen my installation throws up a few FP's for german
> mails. I use the default SA rules + select SARE rules
Ple
DO NOT SEND ME CCs AGAIN or I will DoS your mailbox too! OK?
I have NOT REQUESTED A Carbon Copy.
Peoples sending me hundreds of unneeded CCs (over 2 MB per day) making
me very angry since this list IS SUBSCRIBER ONLY and I get the messages
IF I WRITE HERE!
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Even
Am 2008-10-13 18:57:09, schrieb mouss:
> that's bad. you're contributing to backscatter. if you don't reject at
> smtp time, don't bounce (unless you really know the domain you bounce
> was "involved").
The Messahes are checked and definitively coming from those domains.
I am on GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMT
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 14.10.08 12:17, John Hardin wrote:
You're using BAYES_99 as a poison pill rule, right?
Well, no - that wsas just an example. However I met this one most often.
Ah. Okay, I misinterpreted your initial post, then.
If you're not willing
t
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I see your point (the mail is malformed), but
>>
>>mail is multipart/alternative but only has text/html
>>
>> differs from
>>
>> mail is multipart/alternative and text/plain and text/html don't match
>>
>> are different condit
On 15.10.08 04:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gentlemen, it seems spamassassin used full military justice here:
>
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 2.5 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different
> well of course, because
> 2.3 MIME_HTML_ONLY
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >>so, change it to (+) 0.001. how likely is it to change ham to spam?
> >
> >the same chance, I'd say, for cases someone uses e.g. DKIM...
> >That's why I search for different solution...
> >
> >Well, this was not the first time I'd like to
30 matches
Mail list logo
