Re: Wondering why this scored a -4.0

On Sun, May 10, 2009 21:21, ???nq? wrote: > > I guess Harvard got hacked by spammers? http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=bankofamerica.com&submit=Go! you did not make your own homework on mta level -- http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)

Re: trust SMTP authenticated users

Arthur Kerpician wrote: >> I'm facing the following problem lately. Some of my users are >> connecting to the mail server (qmail) through mobile phones and the >> leased IPs from the GSM operator are blacklisted in spamhaus and >> spamcop. So, they are using the smtp server with spamassassin 3.2.5

Re: List of frequently spoofed domains/addresses?

On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 17:00 -0700, Kelly Jones wrote: > When one of our customers emails someone, we whitelist the recipient > address so that the return email won't be blocked [1]. > [1] We realize this is imperfect: eg, the recipient might reply from a > different address. There's another aspec

List of frequently spoofed domains/addresses?

When one of our customers emails someone, we whitelist the recipient address so that the return email won't be blocked [1]. Some users foolishly whitelist ad...@paypal.com, so that phishing emails go right through. Where can I find a list of "frequently spoofed addresses" (or domains)? We can th

Re: trust SMTP authenticated users

Magnus Holmgren wrote: On lördagen den 25 april 2009, Arthur Kerpician wrote: Hi, I'm facing the following problem lately. Some of my users are connecting to the mail server (qmail) through mobile phones and the leased IPs from the GSM operator are blacklisted in spamhaus and spamcop. So, they a

Re: trust SMTP authenticated users

On lördagen den 25 april 2009, Arthur Kerpician wrote: > Hi, > I'm facing the following problem lately. Some of my users are connecting > to the mail server (qmail) through mobile phones and the leased IPs from > the GSM operator are blacklisted in spamhaus and spamcop. So, they are > using the smt

blacklist_from_unauth (blacklist_unless_auth)

LuKreme wrote: > This gets back to the whole sender domain not matching the sender > mailserver. > > Does anyone have a set of rules for the various banks and paypal and > credit cards that scores them off the charts if they come from > somewhere else. > > I mean, I would feel comfortable scori

Re: [SA] Wondering why this scored a -4.0

>> I'm late to the show ... as Mouss already pointed out, this is now listed in the URIBLs, but it's also now listed in Razor2. Content analysis details: (11.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- ---

Re: Wondering why this scored a -4.0

On 10-May-2009, at 13:38, mouss wrote: ɹןʇnqן a écrit : The URI is now listed: Content analysis details: (6.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 2.0 URIBL_B

Re: Email sent in a weekend should receive more score

On 10-May-2009, at 13:28, M I started to check logs and saw 70%, 80% of emails coming in weekends are spam (in my case). But more than 70-80% of the emails coming in on any day of the week are spam. 09-May-09: 85% 08-May-09: 87% 07-May-09: 82% 06-May-09: 88% 05-May-09: 86% 04-May-09: 93% 03-

Re: Email sent in a weekend should receive more score

M Hello Guys, > > I am trying to realize if most of you work in companies like where I work. > Usually anyone works in my company during the weekends and our customers and > supplier ""usually"" not work to. Then I started to think: who will send > email to us in weekends? I started to check logs

Re: Wondering why this scored a -4.0

ɹןʇnqן a écrit : > > The URI is now listed: Content analysis details: (6.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 2.0 URIBL_BLACKContains an URL lis

Email sent in a weekend should receive more score

Hello Guys, I am trying to realize if most of you work in companies like where I work. Usually anyone works in my company during the weekends and our customers and supplier ""usually"" not work to. Then I started to think: who will send email to us in weekends? I started to check logs and saw 70%

Wondering why this scored a -4.0

I guess Harvard got hacked by spammers? -- Secondly, the Earth's a Libra

Re: Odd behaviour under load.

Charles Gregory a écrit : > On Fri, 8 May 2009, Mark wrote: >> Okay, working from the idea that indeed the connecting client is >> timing out waiting for the "250 OK" after sending the message, I would >> think DNS lookups are the most costly, time-wise. So, I would examine >> the RBL lookups first

Re: FreeMail plugin updated

Just curious - how did you build that list? Henrik K wrote: Hello, I've revamped fully the old code. Works still the same, but has some new functions. It's also a bit more careful when parsing body (new parser, emails inside <> are ignored, as well ones inside urls etc), so it might even reduce

Re: FreeMail plugin updated - banks

Benny Pedersen wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 13:15, Ned Slider wrote: Or maybe I'm trying to reinvent a wheel someone already has up and running :-) a bank without SPF or DKIM signing is NOT worth using Yes - but I think what he's saying is that you have to start with a list of

Re: FreeMail plugin updated

On Sun, May 10, 2009 13:15, Ned Slider wrote: > Or maybe I'm trying to reinvent a wheel someone already has up and > running :-) a bank without SPF or DKIM signing is NOT worth using -- http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)

Re: FreeMail plugin updated

Henrik K wrote: Hello, I've revamped fully the old code. Works still the same, but has some new functions. It's also a bit more careful when parsing body (new parser, emails inside <> are ignored, as well ones inside urls etc), so it might even reduce FPs and add hits, who knows. Domains are no

FreeMail plugin updated

Hello, I've revamped fully the old code. Works still the same, but has some new functions. It's also a bit more careful when parsing body (new parser, emails inside <> are ignored, as well ones inside urls etc), so it might even reduce FPs and add hits, who knows. Domains are now separated from