On 10/02/2014 11:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/02/2014 08:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed
champions of everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter
how shady, is the impression I
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
>> not exact what you want , but may help too
>>
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
>>
>> check_recipient_ns_access type:table
>>Search the specified access(5) database for the DNS s
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 08:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions
>> of everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is
>> the impression I got from speaking to their sales departmen
On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 02.10.2014 um 20:50 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions of
>> everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is the
>> impression I got from speaking to thei
On 10/02/2014 08:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
How do I go about blocking based on the NS records for a given domain
having NS records with an RHS of dns\d+\.registrar-servers\.com ?
again create a rbdnsd zone
add the NS to txt file black_ns.rbldns
in rbldnsd configure the zone as dnset t
Am 02.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> not exact what you want , but may help too
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
>
> check_recipient_ns_access type:table
> Search the specified access(5) database for the DNS servers for the
> RCPT TO domain, and execute the correspond
On 10/02/2014 08:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions
of everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is
the impression I got from speaking to their sales department a while
ago) has one commonality.
All of the dom
Am 02.10.2014 um 20:50 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
> The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions of
> everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is the
> impression I got from speaking to their sales department a while ago) has one
> commonality.
>
>
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:50:54 -0600
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> The issue we?ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions
> of everyone?s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is
> the impression I got from speaking to their sales department a while
> ago) has one commonality
Am 02.10.2014 um 20:50 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
> The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions of
> everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is the
> impression I got from speaking to their sales department a while ago) has one
> commonality.
>
>
The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions of
everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is the impression
I got from speaking to their sales department a while ago) has one commonality.
All of the domains that resolve to 192.3.186.4 are registered to
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Richard Doyle wrote:
It is a new domain, created September 30 with namecheap. An effective
"new domain" system would catch lots of similar spam.
DOB?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk
Does not even need to be considered phishing - they are all spammy as hell
and in no way can ever be considered opt-in / permission based. Phishing or
spam, they need to be shut down. I see thousands of messages from a number
of providers (many of whom I had thought to be good and not selling to
sp
It is a new domain, created September 30 with namecheap. An effective
"new domain" system would catch lots of similar spam.
Oh, and I'm another satisfied invaluement customer.
On 09/30/2014 10:41 AM, David Jones wrote:
>>
>> From: Philip Prindeville
>> S
BTW, I finally picked up the phone and spoke to support at Blacklotus (the ARIN
PoC for abuse there gives bogus info) and discussed this with them.
They refused to believe that a site offering:
* weight loss meds
* miracle cures for diabetes
* tax-deductible window upgrades
* Victoria’s Secret g
On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Axb wrote:
>
>> have you tried "-L forget" before "-L spam" ?
>
> I thought the documentation said that if a message had previously been
> learned as ham, that learning it as spam would auto-forget it beforehand.
>
On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Axb wrote:
> have you tried "-L forget" before "-L spam" ?
I thought the documentation said that if a message had previously been learned
as ham, that learning it as spam would auto-forget it beforehand. Similarly
for spam->ham training. Is the documentation incor
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:38:20 +0200
Axb wrote:
> > these, it just changes the numbers of ham and spam. Are these
> > numbers available to the spamassassin internals?
No
On 10/02/2014 11:13 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
Hi,
I am using dspam besides spamassassin, and am interested in comparing
the bayesian data between the two. Dspam reports statistics that include
somewhat standardised metrics for spam filtering: Spam Hit Rate, Ham
Strike Rate and Positive Predictive
Hi,
I am using dspam besides spamassassin, and am interested in comparing
the bayesian data between the two. Dspam reports statistics that include
somewhat standardised metrics for spam filtering: Spam Hit Rate, Ham
Strike Rate and Positive Predictive Value.
I would like to calculate these for sp
20 matches
Mail list logo
