> Hi,
> I sent an email to priv...@spamassassin.apache.org regarding access to
> mass-check back on the first of September. Is anybody out there? :)
> --
> staticsafe
> https://staticsafe.ca
I did too and never heard anything. I would like to help out this project
in anyway that I can.
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 21:03 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 08:39 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 20:17 +0200, Axb wrote:
> >> Thanks for the sample...
> >>
> >> Was wondering why I didn't see any
> >>
> >> had an ancient Postfix header_check regex rule
> >>
> >> /^X-Yaho
On 10/10/2014 16:29, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> It likely did not make it through moderation as I never saw it. Sorry,
> please resend and cc me.
Thanks, I have resent the email.
--
staticsafe
https://staticsafe.ca
On 10/10/2014 4:19 PM, staticsafe wrote:
I sent an email to priv...@spamassassin.apache.org regarding access to
mass-check back on the first of September. Is anybody out there? :)
It likely did not make it through moderation as I never saw it. Sorry,
please resend and cc me.
Hi,
I sent an email to priv...@spamassassin.apache.org regarding access to
mass-check back on the first of September. Is anybody out there? :)
--
staticsafe
https://staticsafe.ca
On 10.10.2014 3:35, LuKreme wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 10:56:54 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> >>>
>> On 07 Oct 2014, at 11:45 , Jari Fredrisson wrote:
>>> > I ran sa-update & sa-compile.
> >>>
>> Should sa-compile be run after sa-update?
> >>>
Of course it should. I assumed && w
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 20:49 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On October 10, 2014 6:59:40 PM Martin Gregorie
> > Benny: Yes they did - after all, how can they tell a bouncing message
> > due to a fatfingered address from one that was crafted to bounce?
>
> the mailerdaemon is dkim signed, the attache
On 10/10/2014 08:39 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 20:17 +0200, Axb wrote:
Thanks for the sample...
Was wondering why I didn't see any
had an ancient Postfix header_check regex rule
/^X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-bounce/ REJECT
Does this only appear in Yahoo g
On October 10, 2014 6:59:40 PM Martin Gregorie
Benny: Yes they did - after all, how can they tell a bouncing message
due to a fatfingered address from one that was crafted to bounce?
the mailerdaemon is dkim signed, the attached msg is not signed, so its not
sent from yahoo imho
The example
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 20:17 +0200, Axb wrote:
> Thanks for the sample...
>
> Was wondering why I didn't see any
>
> had an ancient Postfix header_check regex rule
>
> /^X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-bounce/ REJECT
>
Does this only appear in Yahoo groups bounce messages? If so , I'll a
On 10/10/2014 06:59 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 14:26 +0200, Axb wrote:
On 10/10/2014 01:46 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending mail
to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo! doesnt! seem!
to! use! S
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:46:50 +0100
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending
> > mail to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo!
> > doesnt! seem! to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets
> > delivered to the forged re
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:46:50 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending
> mail to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo!
> doesnt! seem! to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets
> delivered to the forged recipient addr
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 14:26 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 01:46 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending mail
> > to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo! doesnt! seem!
> > to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets
On 09/29, Jay Sekora wrote:
> Seems like it would be a huge convenience if either (1) turning on
> normalize_charset forced interpretation of rule files as UTF-8, (2)
> there were a similar setting to specify the encoding of rule files, or
> (3) there were a way on a file-by-file basis to say what
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, RW wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:26:25 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
Is it possible to have a site-wide bayes AND individual bayes for
some users (or all users)?
Not as things stand.
Not as things stand, possibly absent a hack like: any user who wants to
use the site-wide bayes
On October 10, 2014 1:46:50 PM Martin Gregorie wrote:
- the List-id: header is set to
- the user part of the To address is alphanumeric soup
Did yahoo dkim sign it ?
List sender domain as blacklist_from then, or maybe its even blacklist_to
*@yahoogroups ?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:46:50 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending
> mail to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo!
> doesnt! seem! to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets
> delivered to the forged recipient addre
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:26:25 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> Is it possible to have a site-wide bayes AND individual bayes for
> some users (or all users)?
Not as things stand. You could use Bayes for one and a separate filter
for the other.
> And, if not, is it generally better to do sitewide?
It's hard
On 10/10/2014 01:46 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending mail
to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo! doesnt! seem!
to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets delivered to the forged
recipient address with the payloa
I've recently noticed what may be a new spamming technique: sending mail
to Yahoo Groups with an invalid group name - since Yahoo! doesnt! seem!
to! use! SPF, this intentional backscatter gets delivered to the forged
recipient address with the payload in the returned message text.
There are two w
21 matches
Mail list logo
