On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 9/8/11 4:58 PM, Yanek wrote:
Hello list,
Please bear with me if it has been asked already, I searched the
archives a bit and could not find any answer.
post the email, full headers and all to pastebin.com, send the url here.
we suspect you h
If each message is indeed a separate message, then no sane MTA could
find them the "same" message. Each will have a unique message ID, and
will have different envelope addresses. I certainly would not use an
MTA that would combine such.
jay plesset
Oracle Messaging Server support.
On 9/8/201
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 9/8/2011 2:26 PM, Steve wrote:
In any case, as it turns out, none of this helps me store a single
inbound spam once - rather than duplicate it for each address in the
envelope... which, to my thinking, remains a sane objective...
Agreed. Although y
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Steve wrote:
On 08/09/2011 17:04, Mark Martinec wrote:
Sep 8 15:04:43 svr amavis[9242]: (09242-14)
Passed SPAM, [208.30.118.112] [208.30.118.112]
->
,,,
,,,
,,
Message-ID: <201109081759.8B7F082565A0D33F9A15@p00905q4tw>,
mail_id: 0eFkT73PzE2y, Hits: 25.936, s
On 9/8/11 4:58 PM, Yanek wrote:
Hello list,
Please bear with me if it has been asked already, I searched the
archives a bit and could not find any answer.
post the email, full headers and all to pastebin.com, send the url here.
we suspect you have them whitelisted, and/or shortcut is enabled f
Hello list,
Please bear with me if it has been asked already, I searched the
archives a bit and could not find any answer.
One of my email address is subscribed to a site that seems to use
Critsend for its outgoing mails.
Since I like to watch after the SA scores of all incoming mails, I've
notic
On 9/8/2011 2:26 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 08/09/2011 19:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Keep in mind that the "To:" header in an email is for decorative
>> purposes only and has no relevance at all to where the email is
>> delivered. In a normal email, the "To:" header will generally match
>> with the dest
On 08/09/2011 19:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Keep in mind that the "To:" header in an email is for decorative
> purposes only and has no relevance at all to where the email is
> delivered. In a normal email, the "To:" header will generally match
> with the destination, but with spam, anything goes. F
On 9/8/2011 1:21 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> I understand. I'd expected the mail message header to reflect the
> address to which the message was sent - as under "normal"
> circumstances. It struck me as being odd that the email addresses the
> originator specified would occur no-where in the messages po
On 09/07, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> I don't see anything in our larger installations, guess you just
> must be blessed :-)
Good to know, thanks.
On 09/07, Axb wrote:
> why not:
>
> blacklist_from *@wannabebigforums.com
That does sound like a better option now, thanks.
> And report to Racksp
On 08/09/2011 17:04, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Sep 8 15:04:43 svr amavis[9242]: (09242-14)
> Passed SPAM, [208.30.118.112] [208.30.118.112]
>->
> ,,,
> ,,,
>,,
> Message-ID: <201109081759.8B7F082565A0D33F9A15@p00905q4tw>,
> mail_id: 0eFkT73PzE2y, Hits: 25.936, size: 1608, queued_as:
Steve,
> I'm using a (mostly vanilla) Postfix/Amvisd configuration...
> [...]
> > If you look at your mail logs, do you actually see 9 messages being
> > received?
> I thought I did, but - now - I'm not so sure... because the log doesn't
> match the messages I find via IMAP. (Really!)
>
> I've at
On 08/09/11 16:23, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Edward Prendergast wrote:
I'm seeing CTYPE_NULL triggering for certain messages from gmail.
If I compare a message that doesn't trigger CTYPE_NULL:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
With one that does:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
On 08/09/2011 14:21, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 9/8/2011 5:07 AM, Steve wrote:
>> This is the thing that was so very, very odd. The message is identical
>> - including the headers. If I look at the first and last spam email in
>> a 9-message block, then u to get the source, and paste them into
>> fil
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Edward Prendergast wrote:
I'm seeing CTYPE_NULL triggering for certain messages from gmail.
If I compare a message that doesn't trigger CTYPE_NULL:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
With one that does:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
CTYPE_NULL certainly shouldn't fire
Hi,
I'm seeing CTYPE_NULL triggering for certain messages from gmail.
If I compare a message that doesn't trigger CTYPE_NULL:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
With one that does:
Content-Type: multipart/related;
I'm thinking it looks like a false positive rather than a legitimate hit?
This
On 9/8/2011 5:07 AM, Steve wrote:
> This is the thing that was so very, very odd. The message is identical
> - including the headers. If I look at the first and last spam email in
> a 9-message block, then u to get the source, and paste them into
> files... diff confirms that the messages are byte-
On 07/09/2011 16:10, John Hardin wrote:
>> I don't want to use greylisting as I often receive legitimate email from
>> new contacts - often while I'm on the phone to them - so, introducing a
>> delay is undesirable to me.
>
> Perhaps a hybrid approach, where you greylist only if the foreign IP
> ap
18 matches
Mail list logo
