On 01/04/2011 04:50 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
> Frankly, I'd think that besides costing the spammers money (a good thing in
> and of itself)
...spammers steal other people's resources - so they'll pay nothing...
The best case scenario we can ever hope for is that they will be stuck
sending all their
>Frankly, I'd think that besides costing the spammers money (a good thing in
>and of itself) it would also be a pretty good spamsign if a block has more
>than, say, 5 or so registered senders in a /64. Just thinking out loud
>here
There are a lot of non-spam mail systems with a heck of a lot m
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 08:30:43AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here's a wild idea that might prove a point. Create a set of meta
> rules which is a combination of every set of two rules.
>
> meta COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 (RULE1 && RULE2)
> describe COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 RULE1 and RULE2
> score COMBO_RULE1_R
On 1/3/11 9:34 PM, "Rob McEwen" wrote:
> BTW - Ironically, it is all the more of an upside that spammers could freely
> pay registrars for as many IPs to have "SMTP designation" as desired because,
> quite frankly, that is a lesser evil than the registrars ever getting
> "political" about who get
On 1/3/2011 9:21 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
> Not to speak for Rob, but...
Dave,
You described my point quite well and I appreciate your help! What I
described is vastly different than whitelisting and has massive
"upsides". I haven't yet found any noteworthy downsides.
Overall, this discussion thre
On 02/01/2011 11:30 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Here's a wild idea that might prove a point. Create a set of meta rules
which is a combination of every set of two rules.
meta COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 (RULE1 && RULE2)
describe COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 RULE1 and RULE2
score COMBO_RULE1_RULE2 0.1
Then run stats to s
Not to speak for Rob, but...
> Haven't you just reinvented whitelisting? I think it's pretty likely
> that people will make lists of IPs known to be mail clients to keep
> down the filtering load, but there's still the problem that bad guys
> can sign up so you have endless compliance problems.
>Please reconsider... and how about this twist...
>
>Let the IP registrars (arin.net, etc) add a very nominal fee for
>allowing networks to designate particular IPs as being used for SMTP.
Haven't you just reinvented whitelisting? I think it's pretty likely
that people will make lists of IPs know
Le 03/01/2011 13:28, Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>
> I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
> moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
> I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
> use to kill them when seen?)
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-122011.html
Further on the topic of RBL's, I wrote this article yesterday for add-on
DNSBL's for spamassassin.
(BTW, I do agree that zen.spamhaus.org is an excellent choice for outright
blocking of spam.)
Warren
On 3.1.2011 20:44, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
>>> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
> now. Works great
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
>> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>> On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
now. Works great.
>>>
>>> Many have said this. Thanks to all who
On 3.1.2011 20:13, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
>>> now. Works great.
>>>
>>
>> Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
>
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>
>> I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
>> now. Works great.
>>
>
> Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
As I understand "limit of free queries" is sufficient
On man 03 jan 2011 17:36:48 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
and spamhaus drop list, just me that hopped it would have a list of
dynamic ip included, but this is not the propose of there drop list
--
xpoint http://www.unicom
John Levine said:
>> Rob McEwen said:
>>
>> To be extra clear, the kind of sender's list I was talking about
>> wouldn't be the same as a yellowlist because it would ALL types of IPs
>> (black, white, yellow). Except everyone... including spammers... would
>> have to jump through some hoops to get
On 03/01/11 15:56, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 1/3/11 10:49 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
a spot check
On 3.1.2011 18:33, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> I've been using zen.spamhaus.org as an MTA blacklist for quite a while
> now. Works great.
>
Many have said this. Thanks to all who replied, I have settled to zen.
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to
biology?
On 1/3/2011 7:28 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
> moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
> I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
> use to kill them when seen?)
>
> I
On 1/3/11 10:49 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
a spot check of rdns shows 'ddd.sub-ccc-bbb-aaa.myvzw.com
On 03/01/11 15:41, Michael Scheidell wrote:
some FN's (hint: verizon's new 4g network has
a new /10 block that isn't in spamhaus.org pbl yet.)
Please share so we can consider adding it locally.
On 1/3/11 10:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
Agreed. I also find that bl.spamcop.org now works well with low
false positives. It used to have terrible FP, but they fixed it.
I would hope that a mass spam run from a compromised aol/hotmail/gmail
account would trigger some SA points on the aol smtp s
In article <20110103143854.16122gzwrvkrf...@mail.junc.org> you write:
>On man 03 jan 2011 13:28:12 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
>
>> I want a good coverage, but not too many false positives. What do you
>> use to block a spammer at SMTP connect?
>
>google on dbl.spamhaus.org and zen.spamhaus.org
Ag
On man 03 jan 2011 13:28:12 CET, Jari Fredriksson wrote
I want a good coverage, but not too many false positives. What do you
use to block a spammer at SMTP connect?
google on dbl.spamhaus.org and zen.spamhaus.org
all this in mta time, use more postfix buildt in rules to reduce dns
querys t
I want to secure a postfix site with rbls, no spamassassin at this
moment. (I use SpamAssassin on other sites, and no RBLs at SMTP time, so
I'm not very experienced with this. SA has may RBL's, sure, but what to
use to kill them when seen?)
I can google, but many of those advices tell to use obso
25 matches
Mail list logo
