John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>
>> John Hardin wrote:
>>
>>> That proxy shouldn't pass a message to spamd unless it has a
>>> Received: header, and I would suggest that it should not pass a
>>> message to spamd unless it has a Received header that was added by
>>> th
On 11/30/2009 9:27 PM, Thomas Harold wrote:
While looking at the scores in 50_scores.cf, I noticed the following:
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 2.303 0.416 1.461 0.274
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 3.099 3.099 2.136 1.897
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 3.300 3.299 3.000 2.189
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48 3.
While looking at the scores in 50_scores.cf, I noticed the following:
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 2.303 0.416 1.461 0.274
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 3.099 3.099 2.136 1.897
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 3.300 3.299 3.000 2.189
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48 3.599 2.800 3.599 3.196
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_48
On tir 01 dec 2009 02:16:04 CET, wrote
I believe Raymond's response was addressing the fact a server
connection could possibly be interrupted before it had a chance to
issue the SMTP QUIT command. I would think being listed for that
alone would be ridiculous.
if its this i would agree, ca
Quoting Benny Pedersen :
On tir 01 dec 2009 00:51:38 CET, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote
So if you have a crappy connection towards your mailserver Marc you
can get listed, thats rather funny, and annoying. Connections do
break also when not running a botnet... pfff
maybe i am dump, but what
On tir 01 dec 2009 00:51:38 CET, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote
So if you have a crappy connection towards your mailserver Marc you
can get listed, thats rather funny, and annoying. Connections do
break also when not running a botnet... pfff
maybe i am dump, but what do you mean by the above ?
Benny Pedersen wrote:
postfix reject_unverified_sender does a vrfy
Nope. It opens an SMTP connection and waits what the receiving MTA
answers to "RCPT TO"
Then it closes the connection.
That is not vrfy.
Hope this helps,
wolfgang
On man 30 nov 2009 21:54:37 CET, Thomas Harold wrote
In general... no. Unless the other company is willing to give you
access to their internal list of valid email accounts.
well there is no point for spamassassin to know if a sender is valid
recipient or not, whats counts for spamassassin
On man 30 nov 2009 21:36:09 CET, Alex wrote
You don't need SpamAssassin to do this. Most modern mail servers
(postfix, sendmail, Exchange) can do this by default. Remove the
default forwarding of non-existent addresses from being delivered to a
general postmaster account, and explicitly define a
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, jdow wrote:
I've often found that ... are far broader ... than I am.
{^_^}
... must ... resist ... straight ... line ... NNN!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.
From:
Sent: Monday, 2009/November/30 11:38
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:19 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
>
> If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
> concept...
> ...M
Hi!
I'm investigating it further but what appears is that the IP also
failed to close the connection with a QUIT.
OK, but it really is a legitimate mail server, so shouldn't be listed.
So if you have a crappy connection towards your mailserver Marc you can
get listed, thats rather funny,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>
> > That proxy shouldn't pass a message to spamd unless it has a Received:
> > header, and I would suggest that it should not pass a message to spamd
> > unless it has a Received header that was added by the local MTA;
>
> A message wil
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
That proxy shouldn't pass a message to spamd unless it has a Received:
header, and I would suggest that it should not pass a message to spamd
unless it has a Received header that was added by the local MTA;
A message will always have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre wrote:
> I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty
> big rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday
> weekend. Did someone get arrested or something?
Since last Wednesday I show about a
John Hardin wrote:
> That proxy shouldn't pass a message to spamd unless it has a Received:
> header, and I would suggest that it should not pass a message to spamd
> unless it has a Received header that was added by the local MTA;
A message will always have one of those. That is what is so
mind
On 11/30/2009 4:00 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
While the SMTP RFCs do support the "VRFY" command (which would technically
let you check whether the "FROM" address exists), probably 99% of all
servers have disabled that command to prevent spammers from abusing it to
validate their mailing lists. (See R
Hi,
> While the SMTP RFCs do support the "VRFY" command (which would technically
> let you check whether the "FROM" address exists), probably 99% of all
> servers have disabled that command to prevent spammers from abusing it to
> validate their mailing lists. (See RFC 5321 section 3.5.2 and 7.3.
On 11/30/2009 3:32 PM, chucker8 wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking at spamassassin for our compnay's spam solution. We receive
emails from u...@theirdomain.com, where the domain in correct but the user
would be for instance, Viagra, which does not exist. We needthe spam
software to realize that this use
Hi,
> would be for instance, Viagra, which does not exist. We needthe spam
> software to realize that this user does not exist and register the email as
> spam.
You don't need SpamAssassin to do this. Most modern mail servers
(postfix, sendmail, Exchange) can do this by default. Remove the
defaul
Hello,
I'm looking at spamassassin for our compnay's spam solution. We receive
emails from u...@theirdomain.com, where the domain in correct but the user
would be for instance, Viagra, which does not exist. We needthe spam
software to realize that this user does not exist and register the email a
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
On 30.11.09 16:41, Per Jessen wrote:
Anyway, how about a way to make spamd refuse to process a message
when it appears to to have any?
MTA is postfix, I call spamd directly using the spamc protocol (but
not spamc).
I have my own smtp proxy which calls
On Montag, 30. November 2009 Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm investigating it further but what appears is that the IP also
> failed to close the connection with a QUIT.
>
OK, but it really is a legitimate mail server, so shouldn't be listed.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http:
> I do note that the company concerned continues spamming on a daily
> basis
> and remains white listed:
>
> 80.75.69.201
> sa-accredit.habeas.com
> list.dnswl.org
>
> So please, spare me the sob story about what a wonderful idea HABEAS
> is.
> Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.
+1
Michael Monnerie wrote:
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php?ip=80.245.199.162
I removed that IP now, in order to let pass mail through. But please
check it. It seems you easily blacklist a host that connects to your
tarbaby MX, but we had a network outage on our primary MX which
r
On 11/30/2009 10:08 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty
big rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday
weekend. Did someone get arrested or something?
I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blocking numbers
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:19 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
>
> > Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
> >
> > If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
> > concept...
> > ...Maybe it would be a better idea to
On 11/23/2009 4:37 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You should complain to ReturnPath. Iirc, HABEAS used to sue
spammers misusing their technology. Don't know if ReturnPath
continues prac ticing this.
Actually, you're confusing Habeas's first tec
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
>
> If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
> concept...
> ...Maybe it would be a better idea to spend that time on supporting them with
> Your feedback.
Thanks
On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 25.11.09 03:23, jdow wrote:
>> Having a little help might help them maintain a better product.
>> But (that bitter word), the basic concept is broken. If the spammer
>> can make more money than it costs to get on the Habeas whitelist
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Chris Owen wrote:
Reason plays no role here. There is nothing you can say that the troll
won't feed on. Best to just ignore and move on.
(nod)
Seriously--after his performance the last couple of months just ignore
him. Easiest way to make it stop.
(nod again) Now tha
On man 30 nov 2009 16:08:53 CET, Chris Santerre wrote
I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blocking numbers from RBLs
tripled over weekend.
what RBLs are you on ? :)
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On man 30 nov 2009 10:56:47 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
Priceless? Bullshit. Useless and annoying. Breaks (or at least makes harder)
possibility for private replies.
i wont solve all worlds problems, but seem reply-to is missused allot
out there
I sometimes send private reply intenti
Hi,
> 195.202.149.231 had the same issue. Seems your tarbaby is a bit harsh.
> Looks more like an unhappy woman than a baby ;-)
>
> I've had to drop the use of hostkarma now, way too many FPs.
I've been thinking the same thing for a while, but still have it
enabled and scored low, particularly th
Hi,
> I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty big
> rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday weekend. Did
> someone get arrested or something?
>
> I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blocking numbers from RBLs
> tripled over weekend.
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> LOL - I shoulda known better than to make a 'reasonable' suggestion.
> Well, at least the subject line is changed. :)
Reason plays no role here. There is nothing you can say that the troll won't
feed on. Best to just ignore and move on
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
You are just as bad Garretson. I have Chris Owen in my killfile and your
reply means I've had to suffer his garbage quoted post. If you do wish
to dance the 'troll' abuse line, go somewhere else with it because
frankly, I find your input rather b
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Chris Owen wrote:
Why anyone replies to this guy about anything is beyond me. Adding him
to a kill file doesn't do much good when you still see the other half of
the "argument".
Most e-mail clients insert a line of the form:
"On (date) (name) (address) wrote:"
So in th
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:06 -0500, Matt Garretson wrote:
> Chris Owen wrote:
> > Why anyone replies to this guy about anything is beyond me.
> > Adding him to a kill file doesn't do much good when you still
> > see the other half of the "argument".
>
>
> +1
>
> If you must feed the trolls, ple
Chris Owen wrote:
> Why anyone replies to this guy about anything is beyond me.
> Adding him to a kill file doesn't do much good when you still
> see the other half of the "argument".
+1
If you must feed the trolls, please at least don't quote them.
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>> PS. If I were a spammer I would be laughing my ass off at this waste of
>>> time. Every effort spent on fighting each other is less spent on them.
>> Actually, it's reasonable to argue tha
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
PS. If I were a spammer I would be laughing my ass off at this waste of
time. Every effort spent on fighting each other is less spent on them.
Actually, it's reasonable to argue that you are worse - you've just
contributed to an argument that yo
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > On 30.11.09 16:41, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> I could, but it won't help - rest assured it has the headers.
>> >> Anyway, how about a way to make spamd refuse to process a message
>> >> when it appears to to have any?
>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > which M
> > On 30.11.09 16:41, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I could, but it won't help - rest assured it has the headers.
> >> Anyway, how about a way to make spamd refuse to process a message
> >> when it appears to to have any?
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > which MTA do you use? How do you plug SA in?
Per Jessen wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On 30.11.09 16:41, Per Jessen wrote:
>>> I could, but it won't help - rest assured it has the headers.
>>> Anyway, how about a way to make spamd refuse to process a message
>>> when it appears to to have any?
>>
>> which MTA do you use? How
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 30.11.09 16:41, Per Jessen wrote:
>> I could, but it won't help - rest assured it has the headers.
>> Anyway, how about a way to make spamd refuse to process a message
>> when it appears to to have any?
>
> which MTA do you use? How do you plug SA in?
MTA is p
> d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
>
> > Quoting Per Jessen :
> >
> >> d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quoting Per Jessen :
> >>>
> I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see,
> and
> I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way
> >>>
d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
> Quoting Per Jessen :
>
>> d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Per Jessen :
>>>
I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see,
and
I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way
they'd get left in the
Quoting d.h...@yournetplus.com:
Quoting Chris Santerre :
I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty big
rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday weekend. Did
someone get arrested or something?
I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blo
Quoting Per Jessen :
d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting Per Jessen :
I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see,
and
I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way they'd
get left in the queue, and I'd have something to debug.
NO_RELAYS indicates
Quoting Chris Santerre :
I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty big
rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday weekend. Did
someone get arrested or something?
I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blocking numbers from RBLs
tripled ov
d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
> Quoting Per Jessen :
>
>> I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see,
>> and
>> I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way they'd
>> get left in the queue, and I'd have something to debug.
>
> NO_RELAYS indicates there a
Quoting Per Jessen :
I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see, and
I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way they'd
get left in the queue, and I'd have something to debug.
NO_RELAYS indicates there are no Received headers:
http://wiki.apache.
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:08 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
> PS. If I were a spammer I would be laughing my ass off at this waste of
> time. Every effort spent on fighting each other is less spent on them.
Actually, it's reasonable to argue that you are worse - you've just
contributed to an argum
I'm just curious this morning. I see a dip in spam trapped, but a pretty big
rise in blocking. I expected a lot worse over the long holiday weekend. Did
someone get arrested or something?
I'm not fully awake yet but it looks like my blocking numbers from RBLs
tripled over weekend.
--Chris
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
it's funny that you send me private copies for mail that DOES belong to
the list, but you refuse private mail even if it's does NOT belong here.
Well, I figured if you wanted to go on being an ignorant asshole and
keep doing it, I would reply in
I seem to be having more emails with NO_RELAYS than I normally see, and
I'd like to havee spamd just refuse to process them. That way they'd
get left in the queue, and I'd have something to debug.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:14 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > The last time I checked no two email systems, be they home, soho or
> > enterprise, had to be the same. Unless, of course, you are now declaring
> > that everyone should
> > > > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > I got '5' for it, at a push...
> > > > >
> > > > > X-Spam-Report:
> > > > > * 5.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_FR Relayed through France
> > > On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:18 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > I think that this is going t
On Montag, 30. November 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote:
> http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php?ip=80.245.199.162
>
> I removed that IP now, in order to let pass mail through. But please
> check it. It seems you easily blacklist a host that connects to your
> tarbaby MX, but we had a network
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > > I got '5' for it, at a push...
> > > >
> > > > X-Spam-Report:
> > > > * 5.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_FR Relayed through France
>
> > On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:18 +0100, Matus UHLAR
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> it's funny that you send me private copies for mail that DOES belong to
> the list, but you refuse private mail even if it's does NOT belong here.
>
Well, I figured if you wanted to go on being an ignorant asshole and
keep doing i
> > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > I got '5' for it, at a push...
> > >
> > > X-Spam-Report:
> > > * 5.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_FR Relayed through France
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:18 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > I think that this is going to have way too many FPs.
On
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:18 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > > I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
> > > the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
> > >
> > > http://pastebin.com/m478c3
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
> > the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
> >
> > Even after learning they still only score 3.6
> >
> > Anythin
Matus forgot to include this one he sent to me personally:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
> > terminology.
On 27.11.09 15:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Matus, why are you once more sending me
On 27.11.09 14:04, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
> for the ruleset:
> header __L_UNDISCLOSED1 To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
just FYI, sendmail can be configured to do different things when To: is
missing - there's sendmail option NoRecipientAction, configured by setting
confNO_RCPT
On 29-Nov-2009, at 04:59, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> I'd assume that a big ISP using SA (and wants the best from SA install) would
> pay to use the better DNSBLs.
I've found pretty much the opposite; the larger the ISP, the worse job they do
filtering spam for their customers. The only exception i
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:56 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> >> Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
> >> Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
The obvious is to simply ignore such private
> On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
>> Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
>> Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
On 27.11.09 17:17, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> priceless reply-to
Priceless? Bullshit. Useless and annoying. Breaks (
> On fre 27 nov 2009 18:08:23 CET, Allen Chen wrote
>> DNSBLs. We are non-profit organization and don't have too much email traffic.
On 27.11.09 18:22, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> install bind, check spamhaus dnsbl in sendmail, add more internal spam
> tests in sendmail, dont add to much dnsbl in se
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php?ip=80.245.199.162
I removed that IP now, in order to let pass mail through. But please
check it. It seems you easily blacklist a host that connects to your
tarbaby MX, but we had a network outage on our primary MX which
redirected traffic to your ta
72 matches
Mail list logo
