On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:34:34PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>
> That reminds me, gotta test how SA runs on a Sun T5240 with 16 core "128
> cores"..
Well not that impressive for SA, price/speed wise..
T2+ 2x8x1.4Ghz, 144 msgs/sec @ 128 processes
AMD X4 4x3Ghz, 43 msgs/sec @ 4 processes
Note that th
On 1-Aug-2009, at 06:14, twofers wrote:
Any ideas on preventing or minimizing this type of spam?
Yep, I reduced the number of emails being processed on my mail server
by about 40% by enabling a backscatter RBL.
postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
reject_unauth_pipelining,
rej
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:34:04 -0400
"Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
> > Of course it's blacklisted, but would you care to explain how
> > rejecting mail from 59.184.51.13 helps, when the backscatter
> > doesn't come from there?
>
> According to the OP, that's the IP he received the message from.
No, he
> score RAZOR2_CECK 5.0
Yes, I have seen my mistake (after sending the email). But the problem with
DCC persists and in that case I was even able to spell a simple
three-word-rule correctly. I am going to post another example with DCC as
soon as possible.
Bye
Stefan
--
View this message in c
>> I have tried adding the appropriate lines, which I believe should be
>> "score DCC_CHECK 5.0" if I want all emails which "pass" the DCC-Check
>> to get 5 points. Unfortunately this is not working, neither for DCC
>> nor for Razor.
>Yes, that should do it.
>Evidence that it's not working? Show
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 20:44:27 -0400
"Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
> > "Terry Carmen" wrote:
> >
> >> The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is
> >> on a number of RBLs.
> >
> > It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the
> >
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:42:21 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:13 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> > And the last problem: When I get mail with sign autolearn=ham so I
> > tried type sa-learn --spam --file mail. When I got the same mail so
> > spamassassin mark t
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
> "Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
>> The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is on
>> a number of RBLs.
>
> It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the backscatter
> doesn't come from there, it comes from the recipients of the sp
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
"Terry Carmen" wrote:
> The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is on
> a number of RBLs.
It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the backscatter
doesn't come from there, it comes from the recipients of the spam.
See: ht
Back on-list. I'm not a personal help-line.
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:40 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote privately:
> I tried it without --lint just "spamassassin --lint -D razor2" so the
^^^^
You did not.
> command line freeze(dont work).
O
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:13 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> And the last problem: When I get mail with sign autolearn=ham so I tried
> type sa-learn --spam --file mail. When I got the same mail so spamassassin
> mark the mail again autolearn=ham. How is it possible when I learn bayes by
>
I tried it without --lint just "spamassassin --lint -D razor2" so the
command line freeze(dont work).
> When I use spamassassin -t -D razor2 < /tmp/spam
> so I dont get the hash and so on but content analysis details...bayes
> clasification and so on. I expected message like :
debug: Razor is a
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:04:35 -0400
> "Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
>> > "Terry Carmen" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > I have received many emails in the last hour which were
>> >> > undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
>> >> > It seems someone is forging usernames in m
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:10 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> Hi I need help with antispam. I use spamassassin with razor. And when I test
> spamassassin --lint -D razor2 then I get result that razor2 : test local
> only, skipping razor. I need test razor in connection to the internet. I
> d
Hello, I found out the following information:
my SPAMD daemon is running under root. But I have in master.cf(postfix
configuration file) the following lines:
Postfix master process configuration file. For details on the format
# of the file, see the master(5) manual page (command: "man 5 master")
Hi I need help with antispam. I use spamassassin with razor. And when I test
spamassassin --lint -D razor2 then I get result that razor2 : test local
only, skipping razor. I need test razor in connection to the internet. I
dont know how it do. Can you advise me?
I find out from spamassassin web th
twofers a écrit :
> So what makes a spammer want to use a valid email address as a return or
> reply-to address to catch all the undeliverable, failure and bounced
> email that occures when sending UBE spam.
>
this is to beat those who use "sender verification"/sender
callout/(whatever you name
Um, Linda.. I'm pretty positive Justin is Irish, not American.
Linda Walsh wrote:
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
>
> Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
>
>
>
> Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul
Per Jessen wrote:
Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's exactly the same technology. (I
haven't done in exhaustive tests though).
Supposedly 'Very' different (I hope)...
1) You can't turn it off in the BIOS
2) claim of benefit from increased cache (FALSE),
(have older 2x2 Dual C
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:04:35 -0400
"Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
> > "Terry Carmen" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > I have received many emails in the last hour which were
> >> > undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
> >> > It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain
> >>
On Sat, August 1, 2009 14:19, Dennis German wrote:
> I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
> NOT sent by me.
backscattering, block this ip, and send a mail to the postmaster, whois ip
might say what email
there system accept non existsing users, or some other b
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
> "Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
>>
>> > I have received many emails in the last hour which were
>> > undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
>> > It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain
>> > Real-World-Systems.com as the "from:" and the "return-path:" .
>> >
>> >
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
"Terry Carmen" wrote:
>
> > I have received many emails in the last hour which were
> > undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
> > It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain
> > Real-World-Systems.com as the "from:" and the "return-path:" .
> >
> > Received-Fro
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
...I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have to
click on each email in a thread to read its content.
This caught my eye, and I wonder if there may be a correlation to
user preference.
I avoid using the mouse wherever possible, p
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:56 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
> language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
> 7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
It's not about words on their own -- it's about how they are be
> I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
> NOT sent by me.
> It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain Real-World-Systems.com
> as the "from:" and the "return-path:" .
>
> Received-From-MTA: dns;triband-mum-59.184.51.13.mtnl.net.in
>
>
> I have sent a mess
Awesome,
just received a German spam, obviously *trying* to advertise a porn
site. The way they blew up really made me laugh -- loud. :)
"Im World Wide Web unter www.example.com kannst du dir
alles ansehen, dabei deinen Schw[...]"
Yes, they really did use *that* URI. Identified spam, all I'm
> > > Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
> > > header of mail?
> > > Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
> > >
> > > X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
> > > SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW: Javascript to hide
I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain Real-World-Systems.com
as the "from:" and the "return-path:" .
Received-From-MTA: dns;triband-mum-59.184.51.13.mtnl.net.in
I have sent a message to ab...@mn
So what makes a spammer want to use a valid email address as a return or
reply-to address to catch all the undeliverable, failure and bounced email that
occures when sending UBE spam.
Is there some legitimacy with spam detection on an email that contains a valid
reply-to email address?
To me
> > On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
> >> Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
> >> header of mail?
> >> Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
> >>
> >> X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
> >> SMTP * 2.2 HI
2009/8/1 Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
>> Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
>> header of mail?
>> Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
>>
>> X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only vi
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Henrik K wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
>> >> that
>> >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegge
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
> >> that
> >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cor
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:04, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
>> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
>> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 arc
On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
> Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
> header of mail?
> Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
>
> X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
> SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW: Ja
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
>> that
>> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
>> or
>> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
> many worklo
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:40 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
I'm sure that is mostly it, Linda. They don't seem to 'get' it.
Two things I observe in this whole 'barracuda-gate' posting;
1. Being 'offen
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same
data in
40 matches
Mail list logo
