On 03/28/2016 05:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.03.2016 um 05:24 schrieb Bill Cole:
>> On 27 Mar 2016, at 21:58, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone actually gotten a single legit message from that domain?
>>
>> IMHO we're close to the point where it will make sense to make email
>>
On 28 Mar 2016, at 15:06, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Whoops, list truncated. Continuing
>
> From:work REJECT
> From:cricketREJECT
> From:xn--plai REJECT
> From:review REJECT
> From:countryREJECT
> From:kimREJECT
> From:scienceREJECT
> From:party REJECT
> From:gq
On 28 Mar 2016, at 14:42, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Daniel J. Luke
wrote:
/usr/bin/time spamassassin < spam.msg
7.92 real 1.85 user 0.13 sys
/usr/bin/time spamc -U /var/run/spamd.sock < spam.msg
126.44 real 0.00 user 0.00 sy
On 28 Mar 2016, at 13:29, Alex wrote:
Hi,
We're seeing an increasing number of quarantined mail resulting from
compromised desktops being listed in RCVD_IN_SBLXBL.
A rule with that name is not part of the currently maintained
SpamAssassin core ruleset and I'm fairly sure it has not been at a
On 03/28/2016 12:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
nothing easier than that with postfix, just start with.
I wish my EDU was cool with Postfix or Exim.
However our routing pool is Sendmail, and the PHB here are
determined to "upgrade" to Proofpoint which is Sendmail based.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Vincent Fox wrote:
On 03/27/2016 06:58 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Has anyone actually gotten a single legit message from that domain?
Never. WTF was ICANN thinking?
I occasionally go through the lists of abused gTLD here:
http://www.surbl.org/tld/
Thanks for that lin
Am 28.03.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Vincent Fox:
On 03/27/2016 06:58 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Has anyone actually gotten a single legit message from that domain?
Never. WTF was ICANN thinking?
I occasionally go through the lists of abused gTLD here:
http://www.surbl.org/tld/
It certainly saves
Am 28.03.2016 um 20:57 schrieb RW:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:43:10 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 28.03.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Alex:
We're seeing an increasing number of quarantined mail resulting from
compromised desktops being listed in RCVD_IN_SBLXBL. This in turn
leads to an increase in the n
On 3/28/2016 3:02 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
From:whoswho REJECT
This is the one that really annoys me. KAM.cf has a 5.0-scored rule
named exactly that, and there's an entire Wikipedia article on the
subject! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_Who_scam. It really makes
ICANN look like they do no
Whoops, list truncated. Continuing
From:work REJECT
From:cricketREJECT
From:xn--plai REJECT
From:review REJECT
From:countryREJECT
From:kimREJECT
From:scienceREJECT
From:party REJECT
From:gq REJECT
From:topREJECT
From:unoREJECT
Fr
On 03/27/2016 06:58 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Has anyone actually gotten a single legit message from that domain?
Never. WTF was ICANN thinking?
I occasionally go through the lists of abused gTLD here:
http://www.surbl.org/tld/
It certainly saves a lot of hygiene processing time to just dum
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:43:10 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 28.03.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Alex:
> > We're seeing an increasing number of quarantined mail resulting from
> > compromised desktops being listed in RCVD_IN_SBLXBL. This in turn
> > leads to an increase in the number of calls to the helpd
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> /usr/bin/time spamassassin < spam.msg
>7.92 real 1.85 user 0.13 sys
>
> /usr/bin/time spamc -U /var/run/spamd.sock < spam.msg
> 126.44 real 0.00 user 0.00 sys
well, it looks like it's DNS related,
Am 28.03.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Alex:
We're seeing an increasing number of quarantined mail resulting from
compromised desktops being listed in RCVD_IN_SBLXBL. This in turn
leads to an increase in the number of calls to the helpdesk with
"where's my mail".
This is typically the first Received h
Hi,
We're seeing an increasing number of quarantined mail resulting from
compromised desktops being listed in RCVD_IN_SBLXBL. This in turn
leads to an increase in the number of calls to the helpdesk with
"where's my mail".
This is typically the first Received header in the email, so not
something
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:21:17 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> On 3/28/2016 11:59 AM, RW wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:58:23 -0400
> > Joe Quinn wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/28/2016 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
> >>> Subject =~ /\$\b/
> >> There's no word boundary between the $ and the ' ' because they're
> >>
On 3/28/2016 11:59 AM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:58:23 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
On 3/28/2016 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
Subject =~ /\$\b/
There's no word boundary between the $ and the ' ' because they're
both in \W.
Thanks, I'd forgotten what the definition of a boundary was.
I presume t
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:58:23 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> On 3/28/2016 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
> >Subject =~ /\$\b/
> There's no word boundary between the $ and the ' ' because they're
> both in \W.
Thanks, I'd forgotten what the definition of a boundary was.
I presume that, until spamassassin ge
On 3/28/2016 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
Am I missing something?
With the test message
printf 'Subject: x 555$ x\n\n '
I get a match on "$ " and "$" with
Subject =~ /\$ /
Subject =~ /\$/
but no match with
Subject =~ /\$\b/
There's no word boundary between the $ and the ' ' because th
Am I missing something?
With the test message
printf 'Subject: x 555$ x\n\n '
I get a match on "$ " and "$" with
Subject =~ /\$ /
Subject =~ /\$/
but no match with
Subject =~ /\$\b/
Am 28.03.2016 um 05:24 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 27 Mar 2016, at 21:58, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Has anyone actually gotten a single legit message from that domain?
IMHO we're close to the point where it will make sense to make email
default-deny and to build standard protocols for senders to be r
21 matches
Mail list logo
