On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 15:55:48 -0400
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mailsea.docusign.net JQ9N42F3MTC8
^^
Never seen this before from sendmail. Bogus DKIM header?
Iis it also possible to test for conflicting X- headers?
My apologies. You are 100,000% correct about changing annoying
behaviours.
I did not find the message you referred to, perhaps because of a
forgotten convenience filter that strips nuisance tags from subjects.
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 19:47:00 +0200
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> FYI, this person is banned from some lists for trolling.
> Might be worthwhile for list-admin to consider that.
>
> https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&as_q=Harald+Reindl+troll
>
Whether or not Herr Reindl is a troll doesn't matter. There
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 02:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 05.10.2014 um 02:27 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 01:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Am 05.10.2014 um 01:41 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> >>> On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i
Am 05.10.2014 um 02:27 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 01:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.10.2014 um 01:41 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well
as "t
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 01:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 05.10.2014 um 01:41 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well
> > > as "thisisjusttestletter@random-of-our-domai
Am 05.10.2014 um 01:41 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well
as "thisisjusttestletter@random-of-our-domains" as RCPT in my logs and
remember that crap for many years now
Sure
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well
> as "thisisjusttestletter@random-of-our-domains" as RCPT in my logs and
> remember that crap for many years now
Surely, SA would never see that message, since that's
Am 04.10.2014 um 22:38 schrieb Yasir Assam:
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
http://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
http://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Netzkonfiguration_Debian/en#Dedicated_Servers_
i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well
as "thisisjusttestletter@random-of-our-domains" as RCPT in my logs and
remember that crap for many years now
well, postfix access maps after switch away from commercial
appliances - are there other well nown local-parts to
Am 04.10.2014 um 18:41 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Reindl Harald:
blacklist_from *.mail
this tld will be valid soon
https://www.united-domains.de/neue-top-level-domain/
...and will likely only be used for spam
sadly t
Am 04.10.2014 um 18:36 schrieb andybalholm:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Benny Pedersen-2 wrote:
> So anti spammer would now stop reading here ? :)
No, but I sometimes wonder if it’s wise to post my anti-spam ideas here,
since that makes it easier for spammers to work around them
a valid poi
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Reindl Harald:
blacklist_from *.mail
this tld will be valid soon
https://www.united-domains.de/neue-top-level-domain/
...and will likely only be used for spam.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.
On Oct 4, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Benny Pedersen-2 wrote:
> So anti spammer would now stop reading here ? :)
No, but I sometimes wonder if it’s wise to post my anti-spam ideas here, since
that makes it easier for spammers to work around them…
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.
On 09/03/2014 01:26 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014, Eric Shubert wrote:
I've seen an uptick of spam lately with random low contrast (hidden)
text. This appears to be lowering bayes probabilities.
On 08/31/2014 10:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Learn them as spam. That will
On 10/4/2014 5:32 AM, Axb wrote:
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
Far as I'm concerned, you are the reining Bayes expert on the
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:59:54 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On October 4, 2014 4:08:00 AM "David F. Skoll"
> wrote:
> > So it occurs to me that if
> > a mail comes in with a Return-Path: header that does not match
> > the envelope sender, that's another very suspicious sign.
> As this mail list
Am 04.10.2014 um 15:27 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 03:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
the merged list is in SVN trunk... 23_bayes_ignore_header.cf
thank you!
Not included are :
bayes_ignore_header X-Authenticated-As
bayes_ignore_header X-Authenticated-Sender
bayes_ignore_header X-Authenticated-U
On 10/04/2014 03:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 01:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actu
Am 04.10.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 01:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite
On 10/04/2014 01:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite a while, I've been compiling a list
On October 4, 2014 4:08:00 AM "David F. Skoll" wrote:
So it occurs to me that if
a mail comes in with a Return-Path: header that does not match
the envelope sender, that's another very suspicious sign.
On 04.10.14 13:59, Benny Pedersen wrote:
As this mail list here :)
a mistake probably (on
Am 04.10.2014 um 14:13 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 04.10.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Reindl Harald:
blacklist_from *.mail
this tld will be valid soon
https://www.united-domains.de/neue-top-level-domain/
thanks for the hint - removed!
the list was filtered out of postscreen-HELO-logs and anyth
Am 04.10.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> blacklist_from *.mail
this tld will be valid soon
https://www.united-domains.de/neue-top-level-domain/
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
Sitz der Gesell
On October 4, 2014 4:08:00 AM "David F. Skoll" wrote:
So it occurs to me that if
a mail comes in with a Return-Path: header that does not match
the envelope sender, that's another very suspicious sign.
As this mail list here :)
Am 04.10.2014 um 13:16 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 12:48 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite a while, I've been compiling a list for local
On October 4, 2014 12:42:15 AM andybalholm wrote:
> Spammers also learn.
I'm pretty sure some of them read this list. (I sure would if I were a
spammer.)
So anti spammer would now stop reading here ? :)
Am 04.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Axb:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite a while, I've been compiling a list for local use.
Merging Reindl's list I've come
On 10/04/2014 12:48 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite a while, I've been compiling a list for local use.
Merging Reindl's list I've come t
On 10/04/2014 12:21 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Hmm,h.rei...@thelounge.net's list of "bayes_ignore_header"s could
(should?!) actually be part of SAa default setup.
For quite a while, I've been compiling a list for local use.
Merging Reindl's list I've come to 137 entries... and growing
On Fre, 2014-10-03 at 16:07 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
[...]
> That's true, but I think if we see headers from multiple vendors, it's
> pretty suspicious. Not many sites filter their mail via Barracuda
> *and* IronPort *and* KLMS *and* PerlMx *and* ... etc.
In general, X- headers are non-Rfc/lo
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
On 10/04/2014 04:08 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Also, in this particular case, the Return-Path:
header was fake... it was put
there by the sender. The actual envelope sender was completely
different: It was<41324...@mail.com>. So it occurs to me that if
a mail comes in with a Return-Path: head
Am 04.10.2014 um 08:12 schrieb Yasir Assam:
> I took the advice on
> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver and set up a
> caching name server.
>
> spamd isn't reporting errors now, but named is:
if you don't have ipv6 i would disable it on the OS level
i have the following setti
35 matches
Mail list logo
