Hi all.
i'm writing here because i'd like to have a certain behavior from spamd.
I wrote a plugin that assign 10 pt to a mail message:
when i manually run spamassassin it says "hey that's spam".
How can i tell to spamd to automatically discard this item?
For "automatically discard" i mean, "do no
Le 02/12/2010 01:02, Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
Personally, I have *never* received a legit C/R. Every single one that
ended up on my machines have been in response to spam sent with a forged
sender address.
I wish I could say the same - at work we have at least a dozen clients
who use chal
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:38 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 12/1/10 7:02 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Personally, I have *never* received a legit C/R. Every single one that
> > ended up on my machines have been in response to spam sent with a forged
> > sender address.
>
> I had a legit
On 12/1/10 7:02 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Personally, I have*never* received a legit C/R. Every single one that
ended up on my machines have been in response to spam sent with a forged
sender address.
I had a legit one.
I was stupid enough to answer a question on this list directly to a
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:17 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Challenge-Response systems are evil. I never reply to challenges and I
> typically blacklist systems that send them.
Personally, I have *never* received a legit C/R. Every single one that
ended up on my machines have been in response to s
On 12/1/2010 11:47 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat E
On 12/1/2010 10:29 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync... an
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:03 -0500
Michael Grant wrote:
> The main problem with this approach is how does
> someone send you mail if they're not on your contact list? I don't
> have any magic answers how to solve that beyond what's already out
> there as in return messages with captchas in them o
I do find this topic interesting, perhaps this isn't the most
appropriate place to discuss it, if not here though, where?
I'd like to make an observation. More and more people are using
"social network" systems like Facebook in place of email. Also IM
chatting is replacing a lot of person-to-per
On 2010/12/01 11:51 AM, Salvatore wrote:
Sorry but I do not understand
SA doesn't block mail, it only processes the contents and provides a
score. It's up to your MTA (postfix), or glue (amavis?), to do
something with that score. If you want to reject mail from a particular
e-mail address,
On 2010/12/01 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually, since the smallest allocation unit is a /64, you could switch
IP addresses once per nanosecond and not run out for almost 585 years.
If you have a /48, you could last for about 38 million years.
So at a minimium, an IPv6 DNSBL will have to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/10 1:28 PM, "John Hardin" wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
Lately, I¹ve been seeing spammers trying to convince you to click on a site
to make hundreds or tens of Dollars, like:
http://pastebin.com/MfG74WGW
The mail cl
On 12/1/10 1:28 PM, "John Hardin" wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
>
>> Lately, I¹ve been seeing spammers trying to convince you to click on a site
>> to make hundreds or tens of Dollars, like:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/MfG74WGW
>>
>> The mail client probably stripped out
Marc,
This is like solving the Suzuki Samauri rollover problem by making
a newer, wider standard for road widths so that the automakers can make
wider cars.
After all the current road width standard is set the way it is because
of Roman chariots which specified that the road needed to be wid
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
Lately, I?ve been seeing spammers trying to convince you to click on a site
to make hundreds or tens of Dollars, like:
http://pastebin.com/MfG74WGW
The mail client probably stripped out the more interesting headers before I
got it from my customer, be
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:29:28 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
> When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the
> largest data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes...
> and then trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the
> mirrors to handle loading that much d
Lately, I¹ve been seeing spammers trying to convince you to click on a site
to make hundreds or tens of Dollars, like:
http://pastebin.com/MfG74WGW
The mail client probably stripped out the more interesting headers before I
got it from my customer, because it originally hit RELAY_RU, and I don¹t
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the mirrors to
handle loading
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per
addressee per message would be almost unnoticable t
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:47:16 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
> One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
> nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
> each spam from a different IP and then not use each IP again for
> YEARS!
Actually, since the smal
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
> IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
each spam f
On ons 01 dec 2010 17:51:44 CET, Salvatore wrote
are blocked from my mail server? And my problem is resolved?
there is just one single problem in that there is no block in mta, its
only the recipient that did not fetch the emails sent
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.htm
On 12/01/2010 02:13 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with th
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
> or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. [...]
The FUSSP! Hooray!
> I'm not sure what the specification of the new protocol should be [...]
Oh, no, it is not.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:55:17 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Besides, I seem to remember hearing that IPV6 is never anonymous
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
> OT comment 1: if IPV6 is indeed never anonymous, where does *that*
>
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:29 +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> .
>
> > IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
> > was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per
> > addressee
"Benny Pedersen" wrote:
> recipient does not fetch mails from his mailbox, so the mailserver on
> the recipient does not accept more mails here its tempfails until that
> problem is resolved from the recipient :)
>
> from your postfix view there is nothing to solve at all
Sorry but I do not under
-Original Message-
From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:mar...@gregorie.org]
Sent: 01 December 2010 16:13
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Do we need a new SMTP protocol? (OT)
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it would take to a
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
was universally enforced.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#e-postage
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member
+1 to moving this de
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
> I don't think that would help at all. Bots would just pretend to be mail
> servers and use SMTP. Any other form of spam could be circumvented by
> setting up spammer-owned MTAs that spammers would use to inject spam.
nothing ne
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 11:02:54 -0500, Michael Scheidell
wrote:
> On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
> >Ok, now let's be serious, there*must* be a reason why this didn't
> >happen long ago, right?
> Because the internet 'must be free'. as in accessable, not as in free beer.
you are p
On 2010-12-01 17:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that i
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
> or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
> the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
> servers talk to each oth
On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
I think that it's almost easy to fix the spam
problem if we are prepared to abandon the SMTP protocol.
Actually, published research seems to indicate spam isn't all that much
of a problem anymore.
Yes, 95% of all email is spam, but currently (commercia
On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Ok, now let's be serious, there*must* be a reason why this didn't
happen long ago, right?
Kind regards,
--Toni++
Because the internet 'must be free'. as in accessable, not as in free beer.
Because like I said, all the BIG guys decided not to follow t
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 10:50:49 -0500, Michael Scheidell
wrote:
> On 12/1/10 10:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> >And authentication will stop spam... how?
> >>> Thoughts?
> >You're wasting your time.
> Ditto. we can't even get big providers (Microsoft/blackberry) or
> ISP's to adhere to cur
On 12/1/10 10:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
And authentication will stop spam... how?
> Thoughts?
You're wasting your time.
Regards,
David.
Ditto. we can't even get big providers (Microsoft/blackberry) or ISP's
to adhere to current RFC's.
If you enforce ALL the RFC's in a pre-queue filter,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:27:13 -0800
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate
> spam or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the
> problems is the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is
> that mail servers talk to each othe
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
servers talk to each other using the same protocol as users use to talk
to servers.
On ons 01 dec 2010 10:40:55 CET, Salvatore wrote
In the first line the sender t...@hotmail.it isn't cached how spam sender
and this sender can send mail through my smtp server.
Thanks.
recipient does not fetch mails from his mailbox, so the mailserver on
the recipient does not accept more mai
In log file I have this:
Nov 30 18:31:26 mail postfix/qmgr[2339]: 440C226A94C:
from=, size=387368, nrcpt=50 (queue active)
Nov 30 18:31:27 mail postfix/smtp[12608]: 440C226A94C:
to=, relay=smtp.hosting.tp.pl[193.110.120.2]:25,
delay=337, delays=336/0.01/0.63/0.23, dsn=4.2.2, status=deferred (host
41 matches
Mail list logo
