I got a request to remove cmpgnr.com for my black list. Are these people
legit?
On 19/02/2010 12:37 PM, Ben DJ wrote:
> 2010/2/15 Daryl C. W. O'Shea :
>> Yeah. That'll be corrected RSN.
>
> Great. Atm,
>
> dig +short -t TXT 1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
> "903765"
>
> Just to be clear, "this^^^" will be the channel used by spamassassin's
> sa-update from SVN 3.3.x bran
JD - and after spending an hour registering and filling out forms I finally
get this email. Sweet!
Jeff
Delivered-To: intersessions.com-jeffk...@intersessions.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on
pegasus.avspamfilter.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, s
HI JD:
What I particularly find amusing is this email saying they have an ISP
program followed by the next one I'm going to send you.
BTW - I have made several attempts to escalate this issue about getting on
the ISP FBL to no avail. If you know a real live person at Yahoo and can
give me a
2010/2/15 Daryl C. W. O'Shea :
> Yeah. That'll be corrected RSN.
Great. Atm,
dig +short -t TXT 1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
"903765"
Just to be clear, "this^^^" will be the channel used by spamassassin's
sa-update from SVN 3.3.x branch, correct?
Thanks.
BendDJ
On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:05 PM, ram wrote:
> But for an ISP this is so painful.
That's why they do it by IP for ISPs (if you ask them, and get a
correctly-trained customer service agent.)
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
The only large ISP that seems to have an FBL friendly approach is AOL.
We've been on their FBL for years. If anyone knows of another ISP with a
friendly FBL I'd love to know.
At 01:05 AM 2/19/2010, ram wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 12:17 -0800,
J.D. Falk wrote:
On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:31 PM, r
On 19.2.2010 12:42, tonjg wrote:
>
>
> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>> That is not the recipe I meant. That calls SA yes, but does not
>> "reject". I can't provide a recipe for procmail as I personally use
>> maildrop, but the recipe that is needed is one filing the spam to a spam
>> folder (or /de
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> That is not the recipe I meant. That calls SA yes, but does not
> "reject". I can't provide a recipe for procmail as I personally use
> maildrop, but the recipe that is needed is one filing the spam to a spam
> folder (or /dev/null).
the golden rule for my server is
Maybe I accidentally did 'make dist'. OK, never mind.
On 18.02.10 09:56, tonjg wrote:
> well this has certainly thrown a spanner in the works and I don't know what
> to do next. I was under the impression that sa was scanning my mail and red
> flagging any spams, then mimedefang would kick in rejecting the email at
> smtp. I'm completely confused now
11 matches
Mail list logo