On 3/16/11 11:50 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Karsten, thanks for pointing out that this is the same guy. I had
missed that.
Warren
Ditto. I was about to tell him how to stop spear phishing.
thanks.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
>*| *SECNAP N
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 17:50 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> Karsten, thanks for pointing out that this is the same guy. I had
> missed that.
Heh, you're welcome -- though that would be referring to my other reply
to this (sub-) thread. ;)
Sometimes it helps to identify patterns. Sometimes it
On 3/16/2011 5:45 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
Probably I need to participate on nightly checks to improve phish and
lower false positives.
More masscheck participants are always welcome!
No.
Th
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
> > Probably I need to participate on nightly checks to improve phish and
> > lower false positives.
>
> More masscheck participants are always welcome!
No.
There is this thing called trust. Credibili
So this actually is a reply to the last post to your previous thread
"how to disable network tests". Merely changing the subject and pruning
the quote from the body -- surprise -- does NOT make it a new thread. On
the up-side, it appears you at least did read (I mean "keep" here) the
thread. Encour
On 3/16/2011 4:08 PM, Hamad Ali wrote:
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients
get, with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM
is easier to be detected than phish (~99% for
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients
get, with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM
is easier to be detected than phish (~99% f
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients get,
with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM is easier to
be detected than phish (~99% for non-phish spam). Probably I need to
I have a mailserver running postfix and spamassassin. I have a user
'user1' and an alias 'alias1', like this in /etc/aliases:
>>> Two obvious things to check: 1) did you run 'newaliases' to rebuild the
>>> aliases database?
>> Positive. The mail is delivered to the right place, it just
Thanks so much for you help.
I took a combination of rules approach as well - let's hope this stops them
coming through.
-Jamie
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
>
> I use the following rule that, combined with other meta rules, catches
> the majority of these
>
> header LW_SUBJECT_SPAMMY Subject
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:24:18 -0500
David King wrote:
> >> I have a mailserver running postfix and spamassassin. I have a user
> >> 'user1' and an alias 'alias1', like this in /etc/aliases:
> > Two obvious things to check:
> > 1) did you run 'newaliases' to rebuild the aliases database?
>
> Posit
>> I have a mailserver running postfix and spamassassin. I have a user
>> 'user1' and an alias 'alias1', like this in /etc/aliases:
> Two obvious things to check:
> 1) did you run 'newaliases' to rebuild the aliases database?
Positive. The mail is delivered to the right place, it just doesn't get
12 matches
Mail list logo
