the only person here at present trolling is you, so for F's sake STFU
and stop generating massive noise ratio
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
Hey, J D! Please post and give me
Justin,
We were able to knock off 4 items in the Amazon USA list with expedited
shipping 8 to 16 days from USA.
hopefully it will take them off your wish list...
Yes, we would love to see your ummm Sought rules back online if they are not
already
are they?
if you need us to put an ind
http://www.isipp.com/ ? They CLAIM they work with major ISPs and several
anti-spam tools. Since they hit nothing a window dressing score (.001)
might be called for so that people can look for hits to see if they do
any business let alone any good.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Warren
On 12/18/2009 06:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED
SPAM% 0.0851 126 of 148025 messages HAM% 0.3738 746 of 199558 messages
S/O 0.185 RANK 0.63
Frack.
T_RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE SPAM% 0.0851 126 of 148025 messages HAM% 2.1367 4264
of 199558 messages
S/O 0.038 RANK 0.80
The weekly corpus
This will be released if we go three days without an objection as per
build/README procedure. At that point these archives will be renamed to "rc1"
and the announcements will go out. Please suggest improvements to this
announcement text as well.
Hey users list, now would be a very good time t
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
> > > Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
> > > hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
> > > problem. It might also allow people to get past the high nega
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative
score for the whitelists.
it can be measured by finding
On 18/12/2009 2:44 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> R-Elists wrote:
>> here is a chance for possible help in more areas than just this specific
>> ruleset issue...
>>
>> i asked Rob some time ago if he could write a script that would check logs
>> and report if a certain rule was effective or not by itself
On 18/12/2009 8:35 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>> If we had more mass-check data from a wider number of mail recipients
>> maybe it would change things, statistically, maybe it wouldn't. New
>> mass-check contributors are always welcome. They take very little
>> effort to
On 18/12/2009 4:46 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
>> I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores.
>> But, people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have
>> probably already overridden them.
>
> Again, I make a note that my concer
On 18/12/2009 5:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>>> We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
>>> i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
>>> masschecks, it would
On 18/12/2009 2:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>
>> John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>>>
>>> > Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> > > > > If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and
>>> HABEAS
>>> > > should make
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Mu
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Perhaps you meant CHAIR and keyboard? ;)
I should have guessed you've managed to short circuit the path
through your brain.
{O,o} <-- Grinning, ducking, and running REAL fast that way>
(Thanks for the straight line. {^_-})
(Thinks twice about it)
Ou
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 15:31, R-Elists wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Axb
> > PS: If JM posts a link to his Amazon wishlist, maybe we can
> > all help him decorate the new place :-)
> >
> >
> >
>
> +1
>
hey, if you all insist ;)
http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/1M0UDEXT6A3I7
https://www.amazon
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:49
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your m
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:46
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But,
people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably
already overridden them.
Again, I make a note that m
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e.,
if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks,
it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. T
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
> > Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
> > hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
> > problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative
> > score for the whitelists.
Is ther
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your
keyboard.
There is a one inch gap between those
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But,
people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably
already overridden them.
Again, I make a note that my concern is for the thousands who install a
'pre-canned' Spamas
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it
has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very
infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good
practice, particularly when an 'issue
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 19:04, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>>
>> Charles Gregory wrote:
>>>
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
>>>
>>>
On Friday 18 December 2009, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett"
>Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:25
>
>> On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>>>hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
Well, at this point, I respectfully bow, and take a step back, so as not
to sound too demanding of our great volunteers (smile), but I believe
in another of my posts I p
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Jason Haar wrote:
On 12/19/2009 04:51 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
(And if more security is needed the easiest way would be to simple
limit access to approved IP addresses.)
Except that a token would enable one "owner" with multiple SA instances
on separate networks to com
On 12/19/2009 04:51 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>
> (And if more security is needed the easiest way would be to simple
> limit access to approved IP addresses.)
Except that a token would enable one "owner" with multiple SA instances
on separate networks to come across as one entity - that could be
de
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Charles Gregory wrote:
> >
> > If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
> > should make note of this and remove the IP
>
> Or we could have the white
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:40:40 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
> From: "Charles Gregory"
> Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> >>> Go read the archives, troll.
> >> All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
> >
> > Fine, fine, pedant.
>
R-Elists wrote:
> here is a chance for possible help in more areas than just this specific
> ruleset issue...
>
> i asked Rob some time ago if he could write a script that would check logs
> and report if a certain rule was effective or not by itself vrs if other
> rules hit with it and maybe that
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:21
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It
might also allow people to get past the high ne
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine, pedant.
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
OK, (Problem Exists Between Monitor And K
From: "John Hardin"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 08:07
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard evidence
of FNs will go much further towards making your point than na
From: "Gene Heskett"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:25
On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the futur
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 07:42:55 PM CET, R-Elists wrote
or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from
local.cf in spamassassin
can you help me / us better understand what you are getting at here and why?
example:
trusted_networks 127.128.0.0/16
and then if 127.128.128.128 is listed in d
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:56
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue ag
From: "John Hardin"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:12
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
Yeah, those links are valid. I just haven't committed anything in a while.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 01:07
On 18/12/2009 3:32 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
...
From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small
amount on the side of caution by not disabling the
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist ru
>
> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, yes.
>
> If it's that big a problem for you in real life, then you
> should be able to provide FNs to the masscheck corpora that
> will _prove_ these scores are too generous.
>
> We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard
> evid
>
> Spamassassin is not something trivially installed like a
> piece of Microsoft junkware. In fact, it is nearly impossible
> to get it to do anything useful without reading lots of
> documents Daryl. Couple this with the fact it only *scores*
> mail - it does not block it - any mish mash
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri 18 Dec 2009 07:09:03 PM CET, Per Jessen wrote
>> Completely agree, but the ZX80/1 made computers very, very
>> affordable. I was 15 when I managed to convince my parents that I
>> desperately needed
>> one of those. Back in 1981,
>
> zx80 was 1980 imho, and had jus
>
> or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from
> local.cf in spamassassin
>
Benny
can you help me / us better understand what you are getting at here and why?
something you already do or implement?
i wish i knew a better way to ask the question(s) so that you could better
hel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:29:40 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> > Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
>
> Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices.
> I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'. :)
>
> - C
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> > There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We
> > are all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 & 6 year old
> > children'.
>
> Good. Then stop talking like th
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:56, Charles Gregory wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:12, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices.
I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'. :)
- C
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We are
all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 & 6 year old children'.
Good. Then stop talking like them.
Please feel free to act like an adult and end the personal attacks, or,
act
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 07:09:03 PM CET, Per Jessen wrote
Completely agree, but the ZX80/1 made computers very, very affordable. I
was 15 when I managed to convince my parents that I desperately needed
one of those. Back in 1981,
zx80 was 1980 imho, and had just 1k ram, and 8k rom, fully expandeble
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> >> Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
> > Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on
> > list.
>
> It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous postings that
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>>hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
>>> re: CP/M
>>>
>>> No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
>>>
>>> My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
>>> 8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating sys
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on list.
It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous postings that answered
the question the first time(s) you (or someone else) asked it
"
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:03:38 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> >>> You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
> >> Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent collusion is
> >> abusive. Don't be surprised if people are abusive i
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> >> Go read the archives, troll.
> > All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
>
> Fine, fine, pedant.
>
> Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
>
> - C
Perhaps I can help
R-Elists wrote:
> as far as museum pieces go, i submit that my first was an Apple 2E if i
> remember correctly..
>
> BRUN BEERRUN
>
> was an interesting game, or something to that effect... ;-)
>
> ...and (snore) i also programmed a helicopter to fly across the top and drop
> a bomb on a "space i
On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
>> re: CP/M
>>
>> No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
>>
>> My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
>> 8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating systems was
>> going to be CP/M 8
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It
might also allow people to get past the high negative score for the
whitelists.
Hm. I *like* that one
On Friday 18 December 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I got to work for several months as a bench tech for an outfit building
>> the first pair of the then smallest tv cameras in the world.
>>
>> Later I found out that one of those civies was Jacques Cousteau,
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine, pedant.
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
- C
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/
specifically this link
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
since i have been watching these devels
thanks
- rh
On Friday 18 December 2009, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett"
>Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 21:21
[...]
>
>Now, if you want to "get me rolling" about an incompetent computer
>company just mention GRiD and their Compass not really a laptop computer.
>Even the bugs were themselves buggy. (We had
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from
the provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I
confused?
Wow. People are running down ReturnPath and they don't even have a
clear
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent collusion is
abusive. Don't be surprised if people are abusive in return.
That is your choice of words - not mine. It is interesting that when
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoin
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
problem. Perhaps
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard evidence
of FNs will go much further towards making your point than name
calling will.
The name calling being?
Alright, let me
Per Jessen wrote:
DNS lookups are usually tried done with UDP first,
Sure, DNS usually uses UDP, but the DNS resolver also waits for an
answer, wich is simply a waste of time when the sender doesn't need the
answer.
Add to this that resolving one address may result in multiple queries
and
Jason Haar wrote:
Then the third filed is NONE. That's how I do it. But the idea is that
any kind of daya can be collectively gathered and distributed.
Instead of a TCP channel (which means software), what about using DNS?
If the SA clients did RBL lookups that contained the details as part
Marc Perkel wrote:
spam 1.2.3.4 example.com
ham 5.6.7.8 example2.com
Sending these one line TCP messages if fairly easy.
Why use TCP for this? Establishing a connection channel for simple short
mesages where a return code is not required introduces pointless overhead.
It'd be much simple
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:26:28 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> > But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists
> > with the delivery of bulk commercial mail in an anti-spam
> > application! If the sender is relying on such rules to ke
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists
with the delivery of bulk commercial mail in an anti-spam application!
If the sender is relying on such rules to keep the mailout under the
radar then clearly there is something very wrong with
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Why not default them to zero and include in the release notes/man that
there are whitelists and they can *enable* them?
Go read the archives, troll.
- C
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On fre 18 dec 2009 15:57:18 CET, Per Jessen wrote
>
>> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the ZX80/1 yet.
>
> or even spectrum hacked to run cpm :)
>
>> I've also got a Newbrain stashed away somewhere, manuals, circuit
>> diagrams an' all.
>
> add it to ebay if you want
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
> > Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from
> > the provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I
> > confused?
>
> Wow. People are running down Return
On fre 18 dec 2009 15:57:18 CET, Per Jessen wrote
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the ZX80/1 yet.
or even spectrum hacked to run cpm :)
I've also got a Newbrain stashed away somewhere, manuals, circuit
diagrams an' all.
add it to ebay if you want to sell it, if i remember newbrain has
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
> > Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
> >>> "Daryl
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that seem fair?
50_scores.cf:score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
> re: CP/M
>
> No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
>
> My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
> 8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating systems was
> going to be CP/M 86.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the ZX80/1 y
Marc Patermann wrote:
> The NixSpam project maintains downloadable lists for ixHash and
> NixSpam blacklist.
> http://www.ix.de/nixspam/nixspam.blackmatches
> http://www.heise.de/ix/nixspam/nixspam.cachematches
>
> The easiest way may be to generate local DNS zones for this, isn't it?
> Does anyo
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from the
provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I confused?
Wow. People are running down ReturnPath and they don't even have a clear
idea of what RP *does*? How lame is that?
Marc Patermann wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:21:21 +0100:
> When I try to test with an entry from a today's list, i get no result:
> (http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php)
That's a flaw in that service. I get 127.0.0.2.
Isn't the OFD able to provide spam-free mail?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Ber
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:12:06 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
> > LuKreme wrote:
> >
> >> I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's
> >> posts,
> >
> > You need to resort to abuse for what pa
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
Then fix it
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 12:53 +, Christian Brel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
> > > "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please stop beating th
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent collusion is abusiv
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:46 +0530
Rajkumar S wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Matt Kettler
> wrote:
> > As you mentioned, you'd need a custom script (not wildly
> > complicated for a good perl scripter, but beyond the bounds of
> > someone with only crude scripting skills.) as well a
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Gene Heskett wrote:
I got to work for several months as a bench tech for an outfit building
the first pair of the then smallest tv cameras in the world.
Later I found out that one of those civies was Jacques Cousteau,
3 hours later had a contract to put those two camera
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> If we had more mass-check data from a wider number of mail recipients
> maybe it would change things, statistically, maybe it wouldn't. New
> mass-check contributors are always welcome. They take very little
> effort to manage once you've set it up (I ignore mine for
dnswl.org does offer trusted_networks-formatted files (separated by our trust
levels), but beware of bug 5931 for older versions of SA:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5931
-- Matthias
Am 18.12.2009 um 10:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On fre 18 dec 2009 10:07:55 CET, "Da
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
> > "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
> > >
> > > Daryl
> > >
> > >
> >
> > T
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
> "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
>
> > Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
> >
> > Daryl
> >
> >
>
> Then fix it and show who really is in charge of this project?
>
It's been fixed. Do
Hi,
because of no external DNS resolution provided by my /provider/, i can
not use network test in SA and am stuck with local test. :(
I thought about work around a lot of time, but most network checks rely
on DNS. I can only use HTTP(S) via proxy servers and SMTP via relay
servers. So no rs
Rajkumar S wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:46 +0530:
> Is the file format of bayes db available some where?
dbm, gdbm ...
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Henrik K wrote:
> Ok, while DNS would "allow" that, it would be a real waste of a
> protocol. Why would you want to make the sending party wait for a
> response that only adds delays and has no purpose? Simply send a UDP
> packet and be done with it. No TCP or DNS overhead. One or two lines
> of p
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
> I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have
any factual foundation. Please check any
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:33:31 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On fre 18 dec 2009 10:23:48 CET, Christian Brel wrote
>
> >> If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
> > I found it much more useful to apply them as blocklists and give
> > the a +4/+8 myself - but that's a personal choice
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
