; From: Reindl Harald
> Subject: Auto-Forwarder -> Reject from now on
> Date: August 4, 2016 at 4:40:22 PM CDT
> To: ryan.cole...@cwis.biz
> Resent-From: Ryan Coleman
> Resent-To: Reindl Harald
>
>
>
> --Pj59V6CtWjUrMHf0gdcMp85rN8LMrnoxQ
> Content-Type: multipart/mi
There is no reason whatsoever to attack list users in this manner.
None. If they’re annoying you then ignore them.
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.08.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>&
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> may is suggest that you sue your drug dealer and leave us in peace until you
> found a better one - and no - that is not an attack, i just try to find a
> logical reason for what you are posting all the time
>
DUDE. STOP.
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:37 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>> So your script dings my websites because I use .php as an extension without
>> doing SEO?
>>
>> That seems really silly. Many websites use internal pages witho
So your script dings my websites because I use .php as an extension without
doing SEO?
That seems really silly. Many websites use internal pages without SEO because
of the royal PITB they can be to program all the little variables. For crying
out loud most unsubscribe links are scripts with var
Keep in mind we do not know that. It is better to not reply and wait a few
hours than get Reindl worked up. :)
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Ruga wrote:
>
> I am AWAY for my office.
> Real spam truly unnecessary.
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Reind
> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be
>>> that postscreen is bad aswell ?
>> Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines,
>> large mail services, and many many others.
>
>
Robert,
As I tried to point out you are at the end of a thread injecting new “life”
into it, which isn’t benefitting the group discussion of an issue.
Thank you,
Ryan
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 201
Apparently you missed the rest of the thread as it was bypassing the scanning
the SA would do.
But you’re jumping in 11 days (and 42 messages) after the thread started.
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> the subject Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold
that greylisting should come
> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
> etc.).
>
> On the other hand, you may have disabled greylisting because you're
> tired of futzing with it and just want your mail to work right again,
> in which case,
No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation.
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
>>
>> I have eliminated postgrey from the in
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal”
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>> strange... how do you run spam
; Am 19.07.2016 um 21:54 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Go away.
>
> who the hell do you think you are?
>
>>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald >> <mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> maybe you should try to understand how the
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email
>> checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> using postfix ?
>
>> Or h
Go away.
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem are
> supposed to work together, then you don#t get responses trying to explain you
> why your supposed solution for a non existing problem is broken by design
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
>> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> you can not - postgrey as a p
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
>> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> why would a
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan
through SpamAssassin?
I’m watching all my log files and emails that are clearing PostGrey are
Thanks to this header my server automatically filtered your email into my
scanned spam folder.
Seems appropriate enough.
:)
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Chalmers:
>> I see. Hmmm.
>> I have the system really screwed down tight, a
I figured out a way to get the spamd user to scan the spam folders. Definitely
helping.
applying email in the inbox that have been read to the HAM is next on the list.
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 9:39 AM, RW wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:29:27 -0500
> Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
&g
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:21 AM, RW wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:14:42 +0300
> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2015 12:41 AM, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>>> Actually it makes absolute sense since I dump my spam into a folder
>>> to be scanned as spam
be the waiting on the flag. I changed it and
now it’s FRSadj.
My guesses so far…
F=Flagged
R=Replied
S=Seen
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 17:21, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (cor
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 17:21, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do
>> it so that it only scans the read emails in a MAILDIR?
>
> Assumin
Thanks, I’m going to read about it tonight.
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>
> Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do
>> I do it so that it only scans the read emails in a MAILDIR?
>
> Sin
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 20.10.2015 um 00:17 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 19.10.2015 um 23:41 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>>>> Actually it makes absolute s
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.10.2015 um 23:41 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Actually it makes absolute sense since I dump my spam into a folder to be
>> scanned as spam and anything that is still in my inbox, and read, is indeed
>> ha
phone and it
moves (but not read) then it’s not an option.
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 19.10.2015 um 23:21 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do
>> it so that it only
Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do it
so that it only scans the read emails in a MAILDIR?
—
Ryan
How do I go about checking that my automated scripts that handle spam learning
are actually learning? I have literally hundreds of emails a day that go into
the “new” folder I have set up and it does not seem to be learning from them.
OS: Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
MTA: Postfix 2.11.0-1ubuntu1
postgrey
29 matches
Mail list logo
