On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 15:06 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> >>> Igor, you might also want to implement greylisting, to give the URIBLs a
> >>> chance to list URIs that appear in these messages.
>
> Ned Slider responded:
> >> Interesting concept - do you have any data to support th
roblem
> > > in Received header fields inserted by your trusted mailer - not
> > > necessarily
> > > a problem in the Date header field. This is not a single rule, but a code
> > > section which tries to guess the actual timetamp at the moment of a
> > >
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:36 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> On Saturday 25 April 2009 16:31:38 Rik wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > > On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
> > > > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
> > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header
> > stamp were within seconds of each other, so I don't think it's a time
> > zone issue as such.
&g
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 23:32 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.04.09 18:44, Rik wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:44:07 +0100
> >
> > I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
> > offered me nothing more than the obvious &#x
I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
offered me nothing more than the obvious 'The message has a date in the
future.
Thing is, I could not see it. The time stamp was 24 Apr 2009 14:20:32
+0800 and matched the firewall connection log OK. Can anyone point me to
a sensi
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 18:50 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * SM :
> > At 01:19 10-04-2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >> They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
> >
> > They could. I doubt that someone running such a service would do that if
> > people are willing to pay.
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>
> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro :
> > Hi
> >
> > The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
> >
> > Somebody noticed some problem?
> >
> >
>
>
>
That is possible - $pamhaus a
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 10:32 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> This video was recently posted to the MIMEDefang list, and illustrates how
> bad the RFC's for mail format are. No wonder SA has such trouble deciding
> what's spam and what's legitimate. NOTHING is legitimate, due to problems
> with th
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 19:25 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 16.01.09 11:26, Helmut Schneider wrote:
> > can I (and if how) create a filter that catches mails _from_and_to_
> > specific email addresses? It should only apply if a specific sender sendw
> > an email to a specific recipient
10 matches
Mail list logo
