marc,
yes, yes it does make it spam if i have no idea who they are or why they are
emailing me and/or my clients.
it sure as all get out makes it spam.
marc, are you boozing or just tired?
- rh
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.
R-Elists wrote:
I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's
close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and
the opt out works.
marc,
we shouldnt have to opt out...
-rh
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.
18.10.2009 2:22, Adam Katz kirjoitti:
Jari Fredriksson quoted himself (both on the 17th):
I have not yet analysed what whitehats cause this, but this rule seems
suspipicious to me at moment.
Now I have. Legitimate bulk mailers.
From: "NYTimes.com"
From: "Iltalehti.fi"
Newspapers. And other
Jari Fredriksson quoted himself (both on the 17th):
>> I have not yet analysed what whitehats cause this, but this rule seems
>> suspipicious to me at moment.
>
> Now I have. Legitimate bulk mailers.
>
> From: "NYTimes.com"
> From: "Iltalehti.fi"
>
> Newspapers. And others. Guestionable rule.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Do note that Hostkarma WHITE is not part of the stock rule-set.
> Moreover, it is *your* score of a whopping -2.1 for the third-party DNS
> BL test you're complaining about, that results in FNs. Last I checked
> (which is a while ago, granted), I wouldn't score it that
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:25 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>
>> My own proposal to fixing this is to bring back Blue Security's
>> do-not-email list, which is to say a freely available index of
>> secure hashes representing email addresses that have opted out of
>> bulk email.
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 17:37 -0400, "Alex" wrote:
> > > rawbody __CCM_UNSUB
> > > /"https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^<>]{60,200}>SafeUnsubscribe >
> > Ouch! Rawbody, that hurts.
>
> Do you mean that it's much more resource-intensive than a regular
> "body" check?
You can't use body rule
Hi,
>> rawbody __CCM_UNSUB
>> /"https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^<>]{60,200}>SafeUnsubscribe
> Ouch! Rawbody, that hurts.
Do you mean that it's much more resource-intensive than a regular
"body" check? When is it necessary (or possible) to use it over the
URIDetail substitute you menti
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 06:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
> Remember, if the
> sender was really clean, their would be zero need for CC.
Absolute unadulterated BS.
This is equivalent to saying "all of those lay-people who just get
gmail or yahoo or hotmail accounts -- if they weren't spammer
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 19:58 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> In other words, how comes you're only venting about the companies you
> despise, and don't even mention the whitelist with a single word?
>
> guenther
>
You need to deal with your personality issues - this is *not* about *you*
ei
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > [...] but as it's being discussed here - I'm guessing
> > > somewhere in SA something is 'grea
Hi,
Sorry, just after I sent this I saw the message from yesterday about using svn.
Thanks,
Alex
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM, MySQL Student wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to download a few of the rules from the SVN sandbox for
> testing without using svn for this. It used to be possible by click
Hi,
I'd like to download a few of the rules from the SVN sandbox for
testing without using svn for this. It used to be possible by clicking
"Download" but in the last week or so the site was updated and that
option is no longer available. Do I have to use svn now for this?
http://svn.apache.org/v
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
> > > supporting a company that profits from sending
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
> > supporting a company that profits from sending spam, even if its only
> > sometimes, by whitelisting them?
"We" aren't
>
> I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's
> close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and
> the opt out works.
>
>
marc,
we shouldnt have to opt out...
-rh
Hi,
> In order to confirm you Web-Mail identity, you are to provide the
> following data;
>
> First Name:
> Last Name:
> Username/ID:
> Password:
> Date of Birth:
Try John Hardin's fillform:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/?sortby=date
Regards,
Alex
To catch this:
In order to confirm you Web-Mail identity, you are to provide the
following data;
First Name:
Last Name:
Username/ID:
Password:
Date of Birth:
Affirm your willingness and cooperation please, by replying me stating
your FULL NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, TELEPHONE NUMBER, FAX NUMBER, and
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 09:30 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John
On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>> >> > M
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
> >>
> >> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>>
>> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
>> > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal
Hi!
One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have
different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different values as
to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my business if I
block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting through. I
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
> > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
>
> How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman fo
24 matches
Mail list logo
