On 7/27/2023 12:08 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hey, all. I've recently started getting spam that's really hard to
deal with, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to approach it.
Superficially,
I'm not sure why the OP's rule didn't match the target message, but it
is NOT because of the Base64 enc
On 2023-07-28 at 00:26:51 UTC-0400 (Thu, 27 Jul 2023 23:26:51 -0500
(CDT))
David B Funk
is rumored to have said:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Jared Hall wrote:
On 7/27/2023 12:08 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hey, all. I've recently started getting spam that's really hard to
deal with, and I'm open to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Jared Hall wrote:
On 7/27/2023 12:08 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hey, all. I've recently started getting spam that's really hard to deal
with, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to approach it. Superficially,
[snip..]
The damn body's been encoded! And there's so little
On 7/27/23 6:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I use spamass-milter on my system and amavisd-milter on other systems
especially to be able to reject spam at SMTP time. Definitely a good thing.
:-)
You just should not use it for "outgoing" mail from your clients, so
they don't complain abou
>
> Hey, all. I've recently started getting spam that's really hard to deal
> with, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to approach it.
> Superficially, they all look much like this:
>
Post the complete message source including headers.
>
> >> I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
> >> authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
>
> ... and does NOT dall under "all".
>
> On 27.07.23 08:11, Marc wrote:
> >indeed afaik -all is all authorized
>
> pardon me? -all means everyon
I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
... and does NOT dall under "all".
On 27.07.23 08:11, Marc wrote:
indeed afaik -all is all authorized
pardon me? -all means everyone except previously ment
On 7/26/23 2:34 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
milters should not be spam scanners, spamassassin is better
On 26.07.23 13:32, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
{spamass-milter,milter-spamc} combined with SpamAssassin cause me to
question the veracity of that statement.
+1
Milter implies doing the fi
Marc skrev den 2023-07-27 09:48:
The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
longer than 2014 :P
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping
very old log files, if there is
On 27/07/2023 18:11, Marc wrote:
I am always using -all. I honestly can't think of a good argument to
use anything else.
I agree.
It's my belief that ~all is only useful for a "production entry test
phase", once your happy, move to -all
Like DMARC's p=none it's a "getting it going" method
On 27/07/2023 17:48, Marc wrote:
The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
longer than 2014 :P
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping
very old log files, if there i
>
> I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
> authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
indeed afaik -all is all authorized
> > When you configure your spf your result is either pass, softfail or
> fail
> > I think we can agree that a correc
>
> The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
> one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
> longer than 2014 :P
>
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping very old
log files, if there is no specific reason for
On 27/07/2023 13:43, Bill Cole wrote:
No, SPF pre dates that, 1998 or there abouts if my ageing memory serves
me
It's failing... :)
SPF originated with an idea of Gordon Fecyk, first written up AFTER he
left MAPS in 2001. First ID calling it SPF would have been 2003 or so.
A brief refresher
14 matches
Mail list logo
