dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
> (SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), and a blacklist of domains that have
> SPF records including IPs that send spam.
You might also want to read this:
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/F
Ned Slider wrote:
> It's never going to happen. We can't even get half the banks to
> implement measures like SPF or DKIM, and they are getting the hell
> phished out of them and are exactly the type of sector you'd expect to
> be using such measures to prevent spoofing and making it easier for
>
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> which in itself has a bunged up RDNS .
>
> Received: from [208.97.132.207] (HELO homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com)
> (208.97.132.207)
>
>
> host 208.97.132.207
> 207.132.97.208.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com.
> if you don't follow the RFC's, y
Jason Bertoch wrote:
> By no means a JS coder, and haven't dug deeper to find out, but couldn't
> it be pre-compiled JS and not just random text?
>
Doubtful. I don't believe JavaScript has a bytecode or any other (except
in some JavaScript engines internal representation) compiled format.
Franc
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Unfortunately, these two are because I receive mail via BT/Yahoo who
never do a PTR lookup on the IP.
> 3.3 TVD_RCVD_IP4 TVD_RCVD_IP4
> 1.6 TVD_RCVD_IPTVD_RCVD_IP
Oddly, I cant get this one to fire on my SA install.
> 2.0 FROM_EXCESS_BASE64 Fro
Anyone know of any good rule-sets to block this sort of spam?
http://www.unchartedbackwaters.co.uk/files/russian_spam.txt
I find that Pyzor and Razor completely miss it as well as the DNS
blacklists (although I believe this one has a relay in one of the
Spamhaus ones now). I'm aware of the langua
schnee wrote:
> 1: "MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts"
> So what ? Do I have to send a text only part also? All my users can read
> HTML.
Typically, mailers should send a text version of the message as well, in
case the mail client can't read HTML. The text versio
> RDNS_NONE is defined by the following rules:
>
> meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD)
> header __RDNS_NONEX-Spam-Relays-Untrusted =~ /^[^\]]+ rdns= /
> header __CGATE_RCVD Received =~ /by \S+ \(CommuniGate Pro/
OK, I'm going to have one more go. The RDNS_NONE rule is tri
Jeff Koch wrote:
> Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
> error. Here's SA header message:
>
> * 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no
> rDNS
> Received: from unknown (HELO cronus.intersessions.com) (74.220.16.65)
>
> As far as I c
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
> that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a different beast...
I interpret those
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
> that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a different beast...
I interpret those
Greetings fellow users,
from what I understand, the TVD_RCVD_IP and TVD_RCVD_IP4 rules are used
to determine when messages have been relayed via hosts without domain
names. As both of these are just regular expressions, this relies on the
various mail relays bothering to do the lookups.
My
12 matches
Mail list logo
