On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 00:09:45 +0200
Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
> Which is the SpamAssasin accepted default format of the HashCash
> header?
>
>
>
> Im talking about the rules:
>
> Rules/HASHCASH_20 through Rules/HASHCASH_25 and Rules/HASHCASH_HIGH
> and Rules/HASHCASH
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
Which is the SpamAssasin accepted default format of the HashCash header?
Im talking about the rules:
Rules/HASHCASH_20 through Rules/HASHCASH_25 and Rules/HASHCASH_HIGH and
Rules/HASHCASH_2SPEND?
What
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
Which is the SpamAssasin accepted default format of the HashCash header?
Im talking about the rules:
Rules/HASHCASH_20 through Rules/HASHCASH_25 and Rules/HASHCASH_HIGH and
Rules/HASHCASH_2SPEND?
What I have understand, these rules are enabled in
Which is the SpamAssasin accepted default format of the HashCash header?
Im talking about the rules:
Rules/HASHCASH_20 through Rules/HASHCASH_25 and Rules/HASHCASH_HIGH and
Rules/HASHCASH_2SPEND?
What I have understand, these rules are enabled in a default Spamassassin
installation, but
On 31 Jul 2015, at 13:23, Christian Jaeger wrote:
On July 31, 2015 4:51:02 PM CEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
John Levine wrote a definitive debunking of e-postage schemes
including
hashcash over a decade ago (http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf) and
published an update (substantively unchanged) via
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, RW wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:47:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
nevermind, envelope recipient, but that's also easy and contained in
the Received headers
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
by mail-gw.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE GATEWAY) with
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> On July 31, 2015 9:13:03 PM CEST, RW wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 2015 17:57:28 +0200
>> Christian Jaeger wrote:
>>
>>> On July 31, 2015 4:37:14 PM CEST, RW
>>> wrote:
SA usually gets envelope information from headers. Since there are
several headers that could contain
rding was done?
> I can see why they went with hashcash_accept, it always works - even
> if the recipient is rewritten.
I don't expect hashcash in forwarded email to be found without special
configuration. If it finds the matching hashcash in non-forwarded configuration
that so
it always works - even
if the recipient is rewritten.
> > Hashcash for email isn't a very good idea. Even if it were
> > ubiquitous and email couldn't be sent without it, it wouldn't be a
> > major impediment to spammers. If spammers don't have t
On July 31, 2015 4:51:02 PM CEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
> John Levine wrote a definitive debunking of e-postage schemes
> including
> hashcash over a decade ago (http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf) and
> published an update (substantively unchanged) via Virus Bulletin in
>
The MTA knows where it's going to, the
information just needs to be passed on to SA.
> It's probably for the best that it doesn't work by default. It would
> likely have been exploited by spammers if it were.
Well, it seems that right now hashcash is of no use. If we ac
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:47:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> nevermind, envelope recipient, but that's also easy and contained in
> the Received headers
>
>
> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
> by mail-gw.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE GATEWAY) with SMTP id
> 3mjWRW6GLQz1
t". I
was thinking that implementing hashcash would help get my mail
delivered to at least the spamassassin users, but this means that no,
only to the subset that cares about configuring it.
As it should be. There is no default value that could be reasonable for
a broad range of sites an
hat's disappointing. For me that barely counts as "on by default". I
was thinking that implementing hashcash would help get my mail
delivered to at least the spamassassin users, but this means that no,
only to the subset that cares about configuring it.
Does SA not know which add
or me that barely counts as "on by default". I
was thinking that implementing hashcash would help get my mail
delivered to at least the spamassassin users, but this means that no,
only to the subset that cares about configuring it.
Does SA not know which address(es) an email is being deli
me that barely counts as "on by default". I
> was thinking that implementing hashcash would help get my mail
> delivered to at least the spamassassin users, but this means that no,
> only to the subset that cares about configuring it.
>
> Does SA not know which address(e
On July 30, 2015 2:40:35 AM CEST, RW wrote:
> The plugin is on by default and use_hashcash defaults to 1, but you
> need to set hashcash_accept to an appropriate value
That's disappointing. For me that barely counts as "on by default". I was
thinking that implementing ha
On 29 Jul 2015 20:55:55 +0200
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've implemented (or at least so I thought) Hashcash for my outgoing
> mail (in a Perl wrapper around qmail-remote that I already had to do
> DKIM), using the `hashcash` tool as provided by Debian, using the
Hi
I've implemented (or at least so I thought) Hashcash for my outgoing mail (in a
Perl wrapper around qmail-remote that I already had to do DKIM), using the
`hashcash` tool as provided by Debian, using the `-X` command-line option. This
tool returns multi-line headers if the email addres
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
Hello,
how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by
default, right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried
to do above:)
I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>> Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by
>>> default, right?
>> Yes but you still need to d
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
Hello,
how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by default,
right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried to do
above:)
I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre "loadplugin
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by default,
> right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried to do
above:)
>
> I am using v3.1.2 an
Hello,
how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by default, right?
I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre "loadplugin
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash". However, the hashcash contained
in incoming mails seems to have been ignored. I added following to
local.cf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coffey, Neal wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>
>> Mailing lists dont stamp anything. Read the hashcash FAQ part
>> about mailing lists.
>
> Ok; you're right. Apologies for not reading up on it better.
> Reading through the wh
decoder wrote:
> Mailing lists dont stamp anything. Read the hashcash FAQ part about
> mailing lists.
Ok; you're right. Apologies for not reading up on it better. Reading
through the whole FAQ, though, it still leaves me with the impression of
being far less than ideal. Which is
and merely inconveniencing spammers. Is the
> collateral damage worth it?
Mailing lists dont stamp anything. Read the hashcash FAQ part about
mailing lists.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE43eq
Dirk Bonengel wrote:
> Kelson schrieb:
>> So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
>> machines out there.
>>
> Maybe so. But it sure will be more expensive for most spammers to rent
> 10 times as many machines.
Only barely so. And at the same time, it will be much more e
Kelson schrieb:
decoder wrote:
This would slow spammers down by a factor of 10-100 or more per
compromised machine (depending on whether the messages sent are sent
individually or to many users at once)."
So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
machines out there.
Ma
decoder wrote:
This would slow spammers down by a factor of 10-100 or more per
compromised machine (depending on whether the messages sent are sent
individually or to many users at once)."
So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
machines out there.
--
Kelson Vibber
Sp
)
>
I read:
hashcash_accept [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
Used to specify addresses that we accept HashCash tokens for. You should
set it to match all the addresses that you may receive mail at.
thus, if I accept traffic for wolfstar.ca, foo.bar.info, and yeahright.com then
I would have:
hashcas
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 17:22 +0200, decoder wrote:
> Well, you can read about the hashcash system at hashcash.org,
> basically, it is a per recipient hash generation that assures that a
> specific amount of time was required to compute this hash per
> recipient. Spammers don't hav
thousands of mails
>> per minute.
>
> A great solution... for 2002.
>
> These days, when most spam is sent through zombies, the spammer
> isn't using their own CPU time, they're using some random person's
> home CPU. They can send the same amount of spam in th
sent through zombies, the spammer isn't
using their own CPU time, they're using some random person's home CPU.
They can send the same amount of spam in the same amount of time *and*
add the hashcash signatures just by using a bigger botnet.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> since SpamAssassin supports the hashcash signatures but support
>> for MUAs is rare, I wrote a plugin which is able to stamp all
>> outgoing emails
decoder wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> since SpamAssassin supports the hashcash signatures but support for
> MUAs is rare, I wrote a plugin which is able to stamp all outgoing
> emails of a postfix server. If anyone is interested in testing this
> alpha version of the content_filt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello there,
since SpamAssassin supports the hashcash signatures but support for
MUAs is rare, I wrote a plugin which is able to stamp all outgoing
emails of a postfix server. If anyone is interested in testing this
alpha version of the
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:29:36AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> However, looking in the config files, HASHCASH rules have the userconf flag.
>>> This means that the Autolearner will also ignore these rules too, as SA
A while ago the hashcash list was lamenting the lack of support in
transfer agents. They are stuck in a chicken and egg situation where
no user agents will add hashcash headers because no spam checkers are
looking for them.
I think we could bootstrap that process very easily with a simple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Torsten Bronger writes:
> Hallöchen!
>
> I sent a test mail to myself which included
>
> X-Hashcash:
> 1:26:051006:[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]::GydjlgtM9KXnHYAH:000493gL
>
> in the header (generat
Hallöchen!
I sent a test mail to myself which included
X-Hashcash:
1:26:051006:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]::GydjlgtM9KXnHYAH:000493gL
in the header (generated by "hashcash"). However, the Spamassassin
header says
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=4.0
This sounds like it is probably worth a bugzilla report.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 5:29 AM
Subject: Hashcash plugin bugs
> Hello
>
> I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0.1
Hello
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (and have checked Bugzilla and latest snapshot
in case this was fixed already).
I was attempting to verify that the Hashcash plugin was working. I created a
'stamp' using the Java applet on http://www.hashcash.org/, and inserted it
into a test
I do not doubt it. That's why I'm really trying on this one. I'm moving this
system off Solaris to Linux soon, so I don't really need to solve this
issue, but I'm curious to say the least.
As someone else pointed out, I tried loading URIDNSBL.pm as a plugin by
putting a loadplugin line in my l
- Original Message -
From: "Mathieu Nantel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: SA 3.0.1/amavis - trouble loading uridnsbl/hashcash/spf
> On October 28, 2004 03:50 pm, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > Mathieu,
> >
> &
Quoting Mathieu Nantel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On October 28, 2004 03:50 pm, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > # su amavis -c 'spamassassin -D < 0.txt'
>
> This works and loads the uridnsbl, hashcash & SPF modules.
> Amavis sounds quite like the guilty part.
gt; So try it with a command line spamassassin, e.g.:
>
> # su amavis -c 'spamassassin -D < 0.txt'
This works and loads the uridnsbl, hashcash & SPF modules.
Amavis sounds quite like the guilty part...
>
> and compare the result with what you get from 'amavisd d
Mathieu,
> Spamd was started from root, as there's a socket permission problem when
> trying to start it as anything else.
>
> Amavis is started as root, and then changes to "amavis".
So try it with a command line spamassassin, e.g.:
# su amavis -c 'spamassassin -D < 0.txt'
and compare the re
rote:
> Mathieu,
>
> > Indeed, spamd starts and behold, I've got uridnsbl, hashcash and spf
> > modules being loaded.
> > It seems amavis is the culprit, at least in the way it's loading (or not
> > loading) modules.
>
> When you are comparing SA debug as called f
Mathieu,
> Indeed, spamd starts and behold, I've got uridnsbl, hashcash and spf
> modules being loaded.
> It seems amavis is the culprit, at least in the way it's loading (or not
> loading) modules.
When you are comparing SA debug as called from amavisd-new,
and log from s
Indeed, spamd starts and behold, I've got uridnsbl, hashcash and spf modules
being loaded.
It seems amavis is the culprit, at least in the way it's loading (or not
loading) modules.
On October 28, 2004 02:37 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:29:08PM -0400, M
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:29:08PM -0400, Mathieu Nantel wrote:
> I'm at a lost here. Is it possible that this @INC search path doesn't include
> the folder where uridnsbl, hashcash and SPF are located? I'm not a perl
> expert, and I have no clue on how/if I can change a
459d78)
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0x945508c)
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0x85a1c90)
debug: plugin: M
53 matches
Mail list logo
