On 11/24/2011 6:04 AM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
So you're suggesting that users review 2700-3000 spam messages messages/day
(depending on how many were already whitelisted) to look for some of those
300?
may be you are thinking about that volume per user, not the case!
I have 200-300 users so..
Hi,
Some time ago we created the following rule on this list to identify
mail with less than 200 characters in the body:
uri __HAS_HTTP_URI m~^https?://~
rawbody __KB_RAWBODY_200/^.{0,200}$/s
metaLOC_SHORT (__HAS_HTTP_URI && __KB_RAWBODY_200)
score LOC
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:51:58 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> Maths language is unique so if someone of you dont agree with me in
> what follows I can give you lectures out of the list.
Converting real-world problems to purely mathematical expressions is
not always helpful.
"Assume a cow may b
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:55:46 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> Nowdays its easier to invert the logic!
> *mark all incomings as spam the first time
> *check spam folder always
> *mark as hamor (here is the relationship with the first question)
> ...just answer emails to the people you allways
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 20:30 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> > * a lot of people on this list are violating RFCs doing the previous
> thing !
> >
> > C
> >
> Rfc 5321 says I can discard if I have high confidence it's rubbish !
> --
> Martin
>
Indeed, that RFC was introduced a few years bac
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 15:04 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> How is it less effort to be forced to check every incoming email than to
> allow your computer to do some or most of that work? You are not making
> any sense.
Yes it does, if he's actually a spammer, he seems to arguing all user
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 15:30 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> >> *check spam folder always
> >
> > Well, if I have to do *that*, I might as well not do any filtering at all.
> > The whole purpose of anti-spam software is to shield me from spam.
>
> Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folde
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 19:51 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> (I want someone jumps over R-elists who tried to discredited me based
> on a language barrier like Karsten Bräckelmann jumped over me before!)
You are discrediting yourself, dude.
I slapped you on the wrist for being prejudiced, accus
I messed up with english :p
direct and contrapositive and I miss the negation af all
contrapositive is negation and switch the hypothesis and the conclusion
2011/11/24 Christian Grunfeld :
> 2011/11/24 R - elists :
>> i think you are realistically confused about truly "negating something"
>>
>> en
2011/11/24 R - elists :
> i think you are realistically confused about truly "negating something"
>
> english is not your native language is it?
No, it is not ! I am not as good in english as you but I am very good
with maths and logic!
(I want someone jumps over R-elists who tried to discredited
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:31:59 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> I wonder what the rfc's say about helo line not matching dns:
> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org
> [140.211.11.3])
RFC 5321 strongly hints that that is no reason to reject mail.
An SMTP server MAY verify that the
On 11/24/11 3:30 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote
Rfc 5321 says I can discard if I have high confidence it's rubbish !
--
Martin
I wonder what the rfc's say about helo line not matching dns:
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-99
On Thursday, 24 November 2011, Christian Grunfeld <
christian.grunf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
>
> * a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
> why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
> * a lot of
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:56:38 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> with your logic why do you have door locks in your house?
1) What I'm protecting [my family and my posessions] is a lot more valuable
to me than a few seconds wasted by a spam that slips through.
2) I don't have hundreds of peop
christian
i wasnt picking on you or your ideas
locks are not a good anology unless you unplug or close port 25
those were mentioned on the list
you are possibly on to some things, yet part of what you are on to is
already late to the table
i think you are realistically confused about truly "ne
> pardon me for my ignorance, yet if you think about it, the OP's idea is why
> some royalty had food and drink tester / tasters centuries ago
>
> assume all food and drink is poisoned
>
> problem is, if the poison wasnt fast acting, the royalty would ingest it and
> die anyways.
with your logic..
pardon me for my ignorance, yet if you think about it, the OP's idea is why
some royalty had food and drink tester / tasters centuries ago
assume all food and drink is poisoned
problem is, if the poison wasnt fast acting, the royalty would ingest it and
die anyways.
eh?
not or negating theory
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:58:55 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 22:36 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
>
>> > > >
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 22:36 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> > > > Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
> >
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> * a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
> why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
Spammers are not beating us. For the most part, anti-spam systems work
pretty well to ke
On 2011-11-24 18:36, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
* a lot of people on this list do not tell their users that
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:00:10 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
I said what i ve said ! The idea could be good, bad, not so bad,
idiot...but more serious things came to light in the list !
in general, general rules is not usefull in anyway, in danish wording:
morale er godt, dobbelt morale er d
2011/11/24 Benny Pedersen :
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
>>
>> what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
>
> the world is full of idiots, including me, thats what you say ?
No. I do not treat any people by idiot !
I said what i ve said ! The idea could be g
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
the world is full of idiots, including me, thats what you say ?
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
* a lot of people on this list do not tell their users that antispam
systems can fail and they can lose emai
On 11/24/11 8:18 AM, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, spamassas...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
"In-Reply-To" header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
response to a message that I sent
again, sounds l
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:07:42 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> > Sorry to follow up on myself.
> > I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
> > holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders.
> > We also have a "whitelist-people-I-write-to" mechanism,
On 24/11/11 13:18, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
>> If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
>> "In-Reply-To" header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
>> response to a message that I sent
>
> what about if your message was stored in a folder of your correspo
2011/11/24 David F. Skoll :
> Sorry to follow up on myself.
>
> I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
> holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders. We
> also have a "whitelist-people-I-write-to" mechanism, so I guess we
> anticipated the OP's "new
> So you're suggesting that users review 2700-3000 spam messages messages/day
> (depending on how many were already whitelisted) to look for some of those
> 300?
may be you are thinking about that volume per user, not the case!
I have 200-300 users so...1 over 10 ham/spam per user!
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Greylists do great job stoping robots but there are spammers with well
configured MTAs who tries and tries and tries and bypass greylists.
Since the frequency of users checking quarantine has also been mentioned:
We've been running spamassassin f
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, spamassas...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
"In-Reply-To" header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
response to a message that I sent
what about if your message was stored in a folder of your co
On 11/24/11 3:16 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
- you need to maintain a database containing every address
you ever received mail from and have sent mail to. All addresses
must be recorded as you receive mail from them and updated to record
when you send mail to them. You could delete addre
Sorry to follow up on myself.
I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders. We
also have a "whitelist-people-I-write-to" mechanism, so I guess we
anticipated the OP's "new paradigm" by a few years.
I estimate
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:55 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> For this we need a modified version of SA autowhitelist not based on
> scores but on trusted or answered emails !
>
This can work well, BUT:
- you need to maintain a database containing every address
you ever received mail from and
35 matches
Mail list logo
