J.D. Falk wrote:
By the by, I think I posted on this list a while ago on a similar question, as
to whether we could really trust *any* whitelists, as they simply made for a
*deliberate* target of botnet owners. No one made a fuss about it before, but
what about now? Maybe, once again, the fla
forgive me for asking this in the middle of this thread yet in all
seriousness...
Q) what is the inverse of Spamassassin ?
i am quite certain that those in the know have spent a lot of time thinking
about HAM signatures.
maybe that isnt quite the right way to say the question...
so, what do yo
>
> After all this debate about a negatively scored rule I'd
> disable it anyway, because the spammers on the list will
> target it specifically now, knowing it works well for them.
>
> Stucki
Stucki,
it seems to me that you, of all people, would want a small negative or
positive score on th
>
> I'm sure we would all live with the occasional true 'opt-in'
> request, if we knew that the end result would be that it
> would stifle spam by giving the legitimate mailers, the ones
> whose mail we *want* anyway, a better chance to reach us.
>
> - Charles
>
Charles,
Nyet, nyet, nyet
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
i dont know if it require code changes to do this, but it make sense
for me atleast to make it, no ?
objection, flames as i like to know how
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:51:40PM -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 5-Dec-2009, at 12:26, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > On 5.12.2009 16:03, LuKreme wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
> >>
> >> 14 of
On 5-Dec-2009, at 13:58, Per Jessen wrote:
> No legislation is any good without enforcement. Provided you have both
> and the enforcement is "heavy handed", spam is not a problem.
Show where spam is not a problem? Spammers are immune to the law because they
are largely untrackable. Who spent the
On 5-Dec-2009, at 12:26, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On 5.12.2009 16:03, LuKreme wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>>> Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>>
>> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
>> initially,
LuKreme wrote:
> On 5-Dec-2009, at 07:57, Per Jessen wrote:
>> It seems to me the UK pretty much has its own CAN-SPAM bill - I can't
>> remember where I saw it, but it is apparently completely legal to
>> send unsolicited marketing email to businesses.
>
> Completely irrelevant.
Not in a contex
> On 4.12.2009 18:00, Thomas Harold wrote:
> > SA had a lot of trouble identifying this as spam. The IP
> > (174.139.37.196) is not yet listed in a lot of the DNSBLs. So it only
> > scored around a 1.0 on the spam meter.
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m1d0a75b7
On 04.12.09 22:42, Jari Fredriksson
On 5-Dec-2009, at 07:57, Per Jessen wrote:
> It seems to me the UK pretty much has its own CAN-SPAM bill - I can't
> remember where I saw it, but it is apparently completely legal to send
> unsolicited marketing email to businesses.
Completely irrelevant. the legality or illegality of a specific
On 5.12.2009 16:03, LuKreme wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
> initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on that.
>
Really?
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 15:57 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In the UK I'm more interested in the offences sending UBE/UCE commits
> > under the Protection from Harassment Act, Section 42 of the
> > Telecommunications Act and possible offences under the Data Protectio
Thanks Dan,
How would I return the language found in the message in the report
results? All I want to do is detect the language and return the results
to Exim where I'll process it.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
The textcat plugin does a fair job. It's part of the default build,
but not enabled by de
The textcat plugin does a fair job. It's part of the default build,
but not enabled by default.
On Dec 5, 2009, at 10:03 AM, "Marc Perkel" wrote:
Are there any rules to determine what language a message is in?
Are there any rules to determine what language a message is in?
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:03:34 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
> initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on th
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> In the UK I'm more interested in the offences sending UBE/UCE commits
> under the Protection from Harassment Act, Section 42 of the
> Telecommunications Act and possible offences under the Data Protection
> and Computer Misuse Acts.
It seems to me the UK pretty muc
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
> > act is to allow the spammers to send out the "first" mail.
The CAN-SPAM spiel is an American phenomena that holds questionable
relevance to the rest of the world (some
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:38:46 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> Robert Lopez wrote:
>
> You go study the ruleset that you are using. I know it's tedious, but
> if you want to know how and what you're filtering, it's the only way.
>
There aren't all that many with significant scores
$ cd /var/db/spa
On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on that.
On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
act is to allow the spammers to send out the "first" mail. Direct e-
mail mailers just setup fake company after fake company, so they can
repeatedly spam the "first time" over
McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:20 AM, "Per Jessen" wrote:
>
>> Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
The other side of the argument is - why does any legitimate company
need to employ a service such as Habeas/Returnpath/whatever?
>>>
>>> Any l
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:20 AM, "Per Jessen" wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
The other side of the argument is - why does any legitimate company
need to employ a service such as Habeas/Returnpath/whatever?
Any legitimate drug company that wants to send price
From: "Per Jessen"
Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/05 02:20
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
The other side of the argument is - why does any legitimate company
need to employ a service such as Habeas/Returnpath/whatever?
Any legitimate drug company that wants to
Robert Lopez wrote:
> I have been reading other threads about white list problems.
>
> In the past week this college has been phished very successfully two
> times. Each time the rules I added to increase the score of college
> specific phishing email were counter balanced.
> On Saturday night it
jdow wrote:
> From: "Per Jessen"
> Sent: Friday, 2009/December/04 09:11
>
>
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
>> This was raised as the IP appeared in HABEAS and for a few hours it
>> 'vanished' from the list. It's back there now, but DateTheUk is now
>> pumping out via an ip six decimal place
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>> The other side of the argument is - why does any legitimate company
>> need to employ a service such as Habeas/Returnpath/whatever?
>
> Any legitimate drug company that wants to send price lists to its
> legitimate distributors or
28 matches
Mail list logo
