On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:21:36 +0100
Ned Slider wrote:
> I do a very similar thing and see very similar results to yours.
>
> I use zen.spamhaus to block at the smtp level and then run all
> headers through sbl-xbl for a further few points. As already
> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it will
I agree so strongly about not checking against all IPs in the header
that I'll probably turn down business from large anti-spam vendors who
cannot guarantee in writing that ivmSIP and ivmSIP/24 will ONLY be
checked against the actual sending IP. If this means I lose 4-5 figures
in annual revenue fr
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:38 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 13.07.09 16:26, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > Do the RFC's state that they need to?
> >
> > yes, RFC4954 in section 7 does
> >
> Where - I don't see it
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 22:43, RW wrote:
>
> I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
> last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
> untrusted headers.
>
> I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> addresses can be reas
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:38 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
> > > > > > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
> > > > > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> > > > > addresses can be reassigned from a sp
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
> > > > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> > > > addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
> > > > my own rule it does seem to wo
RW wrote:
I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
untrusted headers.
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, bu
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
> > > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> > > addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
> > > my own rule it does seem to work. In my
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
> > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> > addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
> > my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it hits about 9% of my
> > spam, with zero false-positives.
On 13.0
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
>
> I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
> addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
> my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it hits about 9% of my
> spam, with zero false-positives.
You will get fa
I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
untrusted headers.
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
m
12 matches
Mail list logo
