On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 21:21 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> What's odd is that all my inbound servers are listed.
Your INbound servers? Did you not wonder why your INbound servers are
listed for SPEWING spam?
Assuming (well, your wording strongly suggests) your inbound and
outbound servers' IPs are
On 10/28/2013 8:23 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
On 10/28/2013 05:06 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Just wondering if any real people are there or if it's totally
automated.
They have real people there.
They have several of our IP addresses listed
Hmmm
and delisting doesn't seem to work.
Strange
On 10/28/2013 05:06 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Just wondering if any real people are there or if it's totally
> automated.
They have real people there.
> They have several of our IP addresses listed
Hmmm
> and delisting doesn't seem to work.
Strange
> We're a spam filtering company (Junk E
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 21:42 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > "The 'raw body' of a message is the raw data inside all textual parts.
> > [...] HTML tags and line breaks will still be present."
> >
> > If you don't want to match e.g. HTML tags, use a body rule instead.
> I knew this, but guess I assumed th
Hi,
> "The 'raw body' of a message is the raw data inside all textual parts.
> [...] HTML tags and line breaks will still be present."
>
> If you don't want to match e.g. HTML tags, use a body rule instead.
>
>> Here's an example of a typical short-body spam I receive:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com
More to the point, if you're a spam filtering company, you shouldn't
be delivering something you "failed to block" to anybody but your own
customers.
Outbound filtering is a reasonable thing to do, to catch spambots and the
like.
But outbound filtering is far more useful when it, you know, ac
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>They have several of our IP addresses listed and delisting
>>doesn't seem to work. We're a spam filtering company (Junk Email Filter)
>>and if we fail to block a spam it can appear we are the source.
>
> Uh, Marc, if the spam comes out of your
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 19:53 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > rawbody __RB_GT_200 /^.{201}/s
> I'm still having a problem with messages that do actually contain a
> short body. The HTML component is considered as part of the whole
> message, so RB_GT_200 is hitting.
Please read the docs [1], about what rawb
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 19:30 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > > think I should have an exclusion for messages that contain a
> > > significant attachment.
> After thinking about it, I think I'd like to detect any attachment,
> including those images typically found in signatures.
>
> > mimeheader __MIME_I
On 10/28/2013 04:57 PM, Axb wrote:
> I'll disable this rule.
Please follow John Hardin's advice and convert it to subrule..
> It shows that Microsoft has a massive spam problem and very litte is
> being to done to solve it.
For the same reason Y!Mail should have similar score ( or worse :p ) .
If
Hi,
> Okay, I've modified the rule:
>
> rawbody __RB_GT_200 /^.{201}/s
> meta __BODY_LE_200 (__RB_LE_200 == 1) && !__RB_GT_200
> meta __RB_LE_200 !__RB_GT_200# less or equal IFF not greater
> mimeheader __MIME_IMAGE Content-Type =~ /^image\/./
> mimeheader __MIME_ATTACH Content-Disposition =
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann
wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 19:12 -0400, Alex wrote:
>> I've created a bunch of rules that are intended to detect short body's
>> meta'd with a missing subject. I thought it was working okay, but I
>> think I should have an exclusion for
or wait 24 hours for the listing to expire.
that said deput...@spamcop.net works just fine.
Neil Schwartzman
Executive Director
Coalition Against unsolicited Commercial Email
Tel :(303) 800-6345
Mob: (415) 361-0069
@cauce
On Oct 28, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Just wondering
>Just wondering if any real people are there or if it's totally
>automated.
I've never had any trouble getting replies to polite inquiries.
>They have several of our IP addresses listed and delisting
>doesn't seem to work. We're a spam filtering company (Junk Email Filter)
>and if we fail to b
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Marcio Humpris wrote:
Hi everyone
Martin, I tried
/\s{0,80}\S{1,20}\s{0,80}/
but it didnt work for me.
That RE is not anchored so it will match on any line that has at least one
non-space character in it. You need to anchor the beginning and ending of
the line explici
Hi everyone
Martin, I tried
/\s{0,80}\S{1,20}\s{0,80}/
but it didnt work for me. if you can kindly confirm it works here, i
appreciate it:
http://www.softlion.com/webTools/RegExpTest/default.aspx
Also, please, sorry for the off topic, but if someone can explain, how
can I reply to a certain po
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
> Just wondering if any real people are there or if it's totally automated.
> They have several of our IP addresses listed and delisting doesn't seem to
> work. We're a spam filtering company (Junk Email Filter) and if we fail to
> block a spam i
Just wondering if any real people are there or if it's totally
automated. They have several of our IP addresses listed and delisting
doesn't seem to work. We're a spam filtering company (Junk Email Filter)
and if we fail to block a spam it can appear we are the source.
Anyone know anyone there
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Axb wrote:
I'll disable this rule.
Convert it to a subrule, it may be useful in metas.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507
On 10/28/2013 05:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2013 12:48 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
28.10.2013 18:27, Jose Borges Ferreira kirjoitti:
I was wondering why MS costumers will have a 2.696+ penalty .
header AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS X-OriginatorOrg =~ /\.onmicrosoft\.com$/
describe AXB_X_ORIG_
On 10/28/2013 12:48 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
28.10.2013 18:27, Jose Borges Ferreira kirjoitti:
I was wondering why MS costumers will have a 2.696+ penalty .
header AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS X-OriginatorOrg =~ /\.onmicrosoft\.com$/
describe AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS outbound.protection.outlook.com forwarders
28.10.2013 18:27, Jose Borges Ferreira kirjoitti:
> I was wondering why MS costumers will have a 2.696+ penalty .
>
> header AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS X-OriginatorOrg =~ /\.onmicrosoft\.com$/
> describe AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS outbound.protection.outlook.com forwarders
> score AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS
I was wondering why MS costumers will have a 2.696+ penalty .
header AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS X-OriginatorOrg =~ /\.onmicrosoft\.com$/
describe AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS outbound.protection.outlook.com forwarders
score AXB_X_ORIG_OMNIMS 2.696 2.799 2.696 2.799
Any idea why is high ?
José Bo
23 matches
Mail list logo
