Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2009 10:15 PM +0200 KarstenBräckelmann
> wrote:
>
>> There's a reason, pastebins (just like URL shortener services) are
>> implementing spam filtering and various other spam/bulk counter-
>> measures. That's because they have been abused by spammers.
>>
On Monday, March 30, 2009 10:15 PM +0200 KarstenBräckelmann
wrote:
There's a reason, pastebins (just like URL shortener services) are
implementing spam filtering and various other spam/bulk counter-
measures. That's because they have been abused by spammers.
Creating a dump to put your spam i
On Monday, March 30, 2009 2:13 PM -0600 LuKreme wrote:
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed is
SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26. It would be 8bit compatible
and would NOT be backward compatible with current SMTP. It would not
have folding of headers line
From: Arvid Ephraim Picciani
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:59:58 +0100
http://codepad.org/W53onqK9
i gave on this kind of spam. its impossible to train bayes and changing
to fast to make custom rules. ...
What do you mean "its impossible to train bayes"?
Bayes really can b
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 13:55 -0700, RobertH wrote:
> Previously, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > The most part of this discussion isn't specific to you, nor
> > SA. It's a well-known, general problem when running update
> > services. It isn't meant to be a decree either, it's partly
> > my opinio
> spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.2.4
> ls -l /var/lib/spamassassin
drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 Oct 16 18:27 compiled/3.002004 ...
The ONLY directory under /var/lib/spamassassin
is
compiled
and it does not contain any .cf files,
nor do any of the subdirectories
PS
Sorry
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 17:24 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > There's a reason, pastebins (just like URL shortener services) are
> > implementing spam filtering and various other spam/bulk counter-
> > measures. That's because they have been abused by spammers.
> It seems
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 14:23 -0400, RWS* wrote:
> >
> Thanks very much.
> Bad assumption (on my part too) !
> > spamassassin --version
>SpamAssassin version 3.2.4
> Gawk
>
> > ls -l /var/lib/spamassassin
> drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 Oct 16 18:27 compiled/3.002004 ...
> does not contain a
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> This won't work out. It's how it used to be...
>
> There's a reason, pastebins (just like URL shortener services) are
> implementing spam filtering and various other spam/bulk counter-
> measures. That's because they have been abused by spammers.
>
> Creating a dump to
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 19:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, March 25, 2009 17:59, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > http://codepad.org/W53onqK9
>
> > and changing to fast to make custom rules.
>
> use rules that catch on non fqdn would be a pointer
>
I have a rule I wrote a few months ago
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 10:24 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> > pastebin said the headers tripped the spam filter so i have to post this
> > way...
>
> I've seen this complaint before. Perhaps SA or one of the other anti-spam
> websites could host a pastebin for spam examples, that explicitly doe
On 30-Mar-2009, at 11:52, Rik wrote:
The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some
changes.
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed is
SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26. It would be 8bit compatible
and would NOT be backward compatible w
On 30-Mar-2009, at 11:24, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:32 PM -0700 RobertH > wrote:
pastebin said the headers tripped the spam filter so i have to post
this
way...
I've seen this complaint before. Perhaps SA or one of the other anti-
spam websites could host a past
--On Monday, March 30, 2009 7:52 PM +0100 Rik
wrote:
The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some changes.
Sure - the mail system is not ideal - however, with no RFC's we would
end up with closed, stupid proprietary systems that don't talk.
Microsoft Exchange is one reason
Thanks very much.
Bad assumption (on my part too) !
> spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.2.4
Gawk
> ls -l /var/lib/spamassassin
drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 Oct 16 18:27 compiled/3.002004 ...
does not contain any .cf files!
ls -l /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/3.002004/
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 10:32 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> This video was recently posted to the MIMEDefang list, and illustrates how
> bad the RFC's for mail format are. No wonder SA has such trouble deciding
> what's spam and what's legitimate. NOTHING is legitimate, due to problems
> with th
This video was recently posted to the MIMEDefang list, and illustrates how
bad the RFC's for mail format are. No wonder SA has such trouble deciding
what's spam and what's legitimate. NOTHING is legitimate, due to problems
with the standards. (And this doesn't even discuss SMTP, just the format
On Wed, March 25, 2009 02:45, jcput...@mail.centreweb.co.za wrote:
> Can spamassassin miss hits or rules if it is running on a slow
> machine?
no its just takes longer, but out of mem is problem
make sure you not using swap, then it should be ok
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirror
On Wed, March 25, 2009 17:59, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> http://codepad.org/W53onqK9
listed in ZEN, and helo with non fqdn helo
> i gave on this kind of spam. its impossible to train bayes
no its not
> and changing to fast to make custom rules.
use rules that catch on non fqdn would be a
--On Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:32 PM -0700 RobertH
wrote:
pastebin said the headers tripped the spam filter so i have to post this
way...
I've seen this complaint before. Perhaps SA or one of the other anti-spam
websites could host a pastebin for spam examples, that explicitly does NOT
ru
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 17:41 -0400, Dennis G German wrote:
>
> Is there a way I can determine when sa-update was last run?
Asumming you are running 3.2.5, then:
$ ls -l /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates_spamassassin_org.cf
will tell you the date it last updated the rules
$ head -1 /var/lib/
--On Monday, March 30, 2009 8:07 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote:
Actually such a list might be a good idea. A list of sites people phish
for. The rule is as follows. If the from domain is on the list then that
domain has to also appear somewhere in the received lines or it's spam. I
think such a lis
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 07:40:50AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
> and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
> people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
> up an rbldns li
On 27.03.09 19:13, Dennis German wrote:
> I believe this is another cPanel issue.
then, post this to cpanel group, not here.
> Attempting to run sa-update displays:
>mkdir /etc/mail: Permission denied at /usr/bin/sa-update line 1226
>
> How can I determine that last time sa-update was run?
Matt Garretson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
What about webmail sites that peo
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
> and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
> people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
What about webmail sites that people phish for? And social
ne
I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
up an rbldns list of banks if this works out.
2checkout.com
2co.com
abbey.com
abbey.c
27 matches
Mail list logo
