Am 27.05.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Alex:
How many points do you add to an email that originated from a dynamic
IP that on a number of blacklists?
This 180.178.104.22 is an IP from a customer in Indonesia:
Received: from [180.178.104.22] (port=51022 helo=CapriciousDude)
by vio1.naveca.biz
Hi all,
How many points do you add to an email that originated from a dynamic
IP that on a number of blacklists?
This 180.178.104.22 is an IP from a customer in Indonesia:
Received: from [180.178.104.22] (port=51022 helo=CapriciousDude)
by vio1.naveca.biz with esmtpa (Exim 4.87)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Kris Deugau wrote:
>
>> SA on mail delivery, where you are (supposedly) guaranteed exactly one
>> recipient/"user", and you can use unique preferences on a per-user
>> basis.
>
> And which, of course, multiplies the scanning load on multiple-recipient
> m
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Another one came onto my mind:
abuse@ address separation.
- mail to abuse@ should not be rejected as spam, even it it might be scanned
(it might be spam report and those should not be rejected)
- spams to abuse@ and other addresses should not
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Kris Deugau wrote:
SA on mail delivery, where you are (supposedly) guaranteed exactly one
recipient/"user", and you can use unique preferences on a per-user
basis.
And which, of course, multiplies the scanning load on multiple-recipient
messages.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Another one came onto my mind:
abuse@ address separation.
- mail to abuse@ should not be rejected as spam, even it it might be scanned
(it might be spam report and those should not be rejected)
- spams to abuse@ and other addresses should not
wma wrote:
> I use SpamAssassin-3.4.1p2 on OpenBSD 5.9.
> I also use sauserprefs plugin (v1.15-git) in Roundcube 1.1.4.
>
> I have a database 'mail' with the table 'userpref'.
> Through the sauserprefs, i can fill the userpref table.
> | username | preference | value |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:23:21 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
> FWIW,
> There's a varient of that in the "KAM.cf" ruleset from March of this
> year. (Look for __KAM_BADPHP1, which is meta'ed into KAM_BADPHP)
>
> It doesn't hit a lot of stuff (only 0.08% ) but does have a high S/O
> (0.9984) in my