On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:15, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>
> Why Google name server returns an incorrect value?
Because sometimes the Google name servers overload the upstream system
and get blocked. The same thing happens if you use the Level 3
servers (4.2.2.x). You would be better served by ins
Il 11/10/2011 20:58, dar...@chaosreigns.com ha scritto:
Thanks to John Hardin for noticing one of these was off. I should've
checked them before replying.
*None* of these should be hitting RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI or RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, or
even RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW.
Alessio, you have a problem *other* tha
Hi Bowie,
Thank you so much for the details.
Forgot mention one important point in my previous mail, the rejection happens
only when I use Yahoo mail. If I send the same mail using any other clients
(Hotmail, Google, OL etc) the mail accepts as normal and everything work fine.
So Can I assume
On 2011/10/11 12:30, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:27:04 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
And I have my own IP reputation project that could use your data:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
shame on microsoft not letting me have ie9, shame on you not let me see your
page as
Michael Scheidell wrote:
I have sent linkedin spam to returnpath, to their APPROVED reporting
email address, which is certificat...@returnpath.net for almost two years.
This spam had no remove links, no unsubscription information, and the
only way to stop spam from the specific spammer who used l
On 10/11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> thanks for link, but it was more info from the above sender for why
> bayes 99 is not good
Oh, probably just because for some reason he isn't comfortable with
increasing the score of the BAYES_99 rule. Although he'd be much better
off figuring out why he's getti
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:24:54 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
eloborate on bayes please
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesInSpamAssassin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering
thanks for link
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:27:04 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
And I have my own IP reputation project that could use your data:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
shame on microsoft not letting me have ie9, shame on you not let me see
your page as html 3.2
On 10/11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
>
> eloborate on bayes please
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesInSpamAssassin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering
> http://www.dnswl.org/ see link abuse reporting
>
> when setup, do spamassassi
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:18:59 +0200, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many
spam email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED".
Also
BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
eloborate on bayes please
For now I solved the problem
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:14:06 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
(and possibly list of forwarders who do not rewrite mail from)
breaks dkim, and instalations that use from: as envelope sender header
ask for troubles
Thanks to John Hardin for noticing one of these was off. I should've
checked them before replying.
*None* of these should be hitting RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI or RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, or
even RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW.
Alessio, you have a problem *other* than the data listed by dnswl.org.
Start with the X-Spam-Rela
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 15:37 +, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Your testing strategy of spamassassin is interesting to emulate and I
> have following queries:
>
> Following are the plugins that get loaded in my spamassassin:
>
> SpamAssassin loaded plugins: AutoLearnThreshold, Bayes, Bod
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:49:36 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
such forwarding will break SPF iff the forwarder does not change the
mail from: address, and in such case it FAKES the return path, since
it's not the original sender who sent the mail, it's the recipient.
it breaks dkim if anyth
On 10/11, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> >Received: from nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
> >(nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.84])
> > by www-mydomain.myserver.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8889762AB1
> > for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:22 +0200 (CEST)
Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many spam
> email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED". Also
> BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
>
> For now I solved the problem by disable this check, but is a common
> problems for many
On 10/11/11 1:47 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Yahoo is in RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI ?!?! YGBFKM!
there goes the neighborhood.
I am removing RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI checks on our servers right now.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile S
On 10/11/11 1:27 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/11, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
403 Forbidden
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /dnswl/dl/DNSWLh.pm
on this server.
Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at www.chaosreigns.com Port
80
http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/sa_plugin/
And I
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
Return-Path:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
www-mydomain.myserver.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW,BAYES_99,
DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:28:53 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 10/11/11 12:18 PM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> > I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many
> > spam email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED".
> > Also BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
>
On 10/11, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many
> spam email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED".
> Also BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
>
> For now I solved the problem by disable this check, but is a common
> problems
Il 11/10/2011 18:28, Michael Scheidell ha scritto:
On 10/11/11 12:18 PM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many spam
email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED". Also
BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
college.. new year, ne
On 10/11/11 12:18 PM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many spam
email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED". Also
BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
college.. new year, new students, new computers, new worms. as the old
s
Hi,
I'm an italian user of spamassassin. During the last 3 weeks many spam
email have rating cut down by the rules "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED". Also
BAYES_99 can to nothing against this :-(
For now I solved the problem by disable this check, but is a common
problems for many italian users.
How we
Martin,
Your testing strategy of spamassassin is interesting to emulate and I have
following queries:
Following are the plugins that get loaded in my spamassassin:
SpamAssassin loaded plugins: AutoLearnThreshold, Bayes, BodyEval, Check, DKIM,
DNSEval, FreeMail, FuzzyOcr, HTMLEval, HTTPSMismatc
On 05.10.11 11:01, Julian Yap wrote:
I've noticed some trojans with addresses from usps.com slip through.
Does anyone blacklist based on SPF?
According to SPF definition, all mail that fails SPF check, is forged
and therefore it should be rejected (in case of FAIL result), or very
carefully
On 10/11/11 8:55 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
To returnpath's credit, it appears that the
addresses linkedin uses to send invitation spam to mailinglists have
been delisted - but this should have happened within a few business days
of the first complaint.
I have sent linkedin spam to returnpath, t
On 10/11/2011 7:38 AM, Varghese, Daniel wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> One of the email gets rejected due to high spam score, Following are
> the spam score details, Can someone in the group help me to understand
> the results?
>
> [BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
> DKIM_VALID_
On 7 Oct 2011 00:28:49 -, John Levine wrote:
Nobody with any interest in delivering the mail that their users want.
The error rate is much, much too high.
On 10/7/2011 12:50 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
how ?
On 10.10.11 07:00, Marc Perkel wrote:
All forwarded email would fail SPF testing.
Most of my experience receiving "certified spam" has been with
returnpath. It's still too hard to find how to report abuse (it's not a
prominent link on the returnpath.net), and reporting spam that they've
certified has been only somewhat satisfactory - a few places have been
delisted, but not pr
Hi Guys,
One of the email gets rejected due to high spam score, Following are the spam
score details, Can someone in the group help me to understand the results?
[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FUZZY_CREDIT=1.678,
HK_RAN
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:37:53 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
[snip]
No, there is not ALL_TRUSTED in the headers. I'm sorry, I did not
write here the rules that matched the message, so here it is:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.988 tagged_above=3 required=5
tests=[DOS_OE_TO_MX=3.086, FSL_H
32 matches
Mail list logo