their break from school.
Please help spread the word, review bugzilla, and post about great project
ideas that might be appropriate for a student developer with an Apache mentor
guiding them.
As examples, here is one project that has already been picked up for this
year, but gives an idea of
break from school.
Please help spread the word, review bugzilla, and post about great project
ideas that might be appropriate for a student developer with an Apache mentor
guiding them.
For example, due to a hiccup with missing a deadline, this proposal in 2015
wasn't able to be done (
Le 2015-09-01 11:34, Alex a écrit :
Hi all,
I'm having a problem with "buy my list" spam and hoped someone could
help me with ideas of how to best block them.
Here's an example:
http://pastebin.com/01C1DDmq
Even a few days later, and the sending IP isn't black
Alex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having a problem with "buy my list" spam and hoped someone could
> help me with ideas of how to best block them.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://pastebin.com/01C1DDmq
>
> Even a few days later, and the sending I
Am 01.09.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Alex:
Hi all,
I'm having a problem with "buy my list" spam and hoped someone could
help me with ideas of how to best block them.
Here's an example:
http://pastebin.com/01C1DDmq
Even a few days later, and the sending IP isn't black
Hi all,
I'm having a problem with "buy my list" spam and hoped someone could
help me with ideas of how to best block them.
Here's an example:
http://pastebin.com/01C1DDmq
Even a few days later, and the sending IP isn't blacklisted anywhere.
I have a couple of body ru
FYI
http://www.crn.com/news/security/300073406/doj-cryptolocker-trojan-is-now-out-of-commission.htm?cid=nl_sec#
On Jul 10, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
On 7/10/2014 at 3:35 PM, "David F. Skoll" wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:25:50 -0700
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> Fundamentally I think the problem is with attachments.
>>
>> No, the problem is not with attachments. An attachme
>>> On 7/10/2014 at 3:35 PM, "David F. Skoll" wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:25:50 -0700
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> Fundamentally I think the problem is with attachments.
>
> No, the problem is not with attachments. An attachment actually included
> in an email is no more dangerous than a
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:25:50 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Fundamentally I think the problem is with attachments.
No, the problem is not with attachments. An attachment actually included
in an email is no more dangerous than an attachment downloaded via a link.
Email attachments are far too c
On 7/10/2014 12:12 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/10/2014 8:26 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> I'm not excusing their approach, but I'm saying there are a lot of
> sources of real-world friction
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/10/2014 8:26 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> I'm not excusing their approach, but I'm saying there are a lot of
> sources of real-world friction that lead to suboptimal solutions like
On 7/10/14, 1:43 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>And when victim of the phish clicks on the SSL link then the browser
>sends out alarm bells that the SSL certificate is compromised and not to
>go there, eh?
If we could rely on users to not click right through that SSL warning, we
would be living
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:43:21 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> SO I think that using PGP was the right course of action here.
Yes, of course. But they should supply the PGP *software* using a
separate delivery mechanism from the PGP-encrypted *payload*.
Encouraging people to rename and run execut
On 7/10/2014 8:26 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
I'm not excusing their approach, but I'm saying there are a lot of
sources of real-world friction that lead to suboptimal solutions like
this. I expect the desire to avoid requiring install
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Although from the pro-gunners out there now we will hear the "software
doesn't kill people, users kill people" arguments claiming it's not
Symantec's fault
Please do not go there.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jh
On 7/10/2014 12:31 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You didn't read your own code of ethics.
It states if you have a bias, you disclose it. David HAD a bias in his
original post and DID NOT disclose it. He DID subsequently disclose
that bias AFTER I had called him on it and I commend him for it.
T
You didn't read your own code of ethics.
It states if you have a bias, you disclose it. David HAD a bias in his
original post and DID NOT disclose it. He DID subsequently disclose
that bias AFTER I had called him on it and I commend him for it.
This is the problem with codes of ethics - it's e
On 7/9/2014 5:18 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:44:27 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
David DID NOT say that. He said that "he was shocked to discover"
Why are you assuming he is under NDA or he is an employee of this
company?
Let me clarify the situation:
1) I'm the owne
I believe strongly that ALL IT admins would be well guided by reading
the SAGE ethics guide
http://www.pccc.com/base.cgim?template=sage_code_of_ethics
Can't recommend it highly enough and I think it would guide well in this
gray areas on how to handle things.
I didn't like that a poster wi
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> I'm not excusing their approach, but I'm saying there are a lot of
> sources of real-world friction that lead to suboptimal solutions like
> this. I expect the desire to avoid requiring installation (and
> maintenance!) of PGP/GPG by th
On 7/8/2014 10:41 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:03:35 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
So this sounds like you are searching the entire email for this
string which just sounds inefficient especially if they use some big
attachments.
It's not too bad because the regex is simp
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/2014 11:37 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
>>> do stuff like this? It just makes it look
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You are an administrator. YOU ARE PAID BY CLUELESS USERS TO PROTECT
THEM AND THEIR DATA, DAMMIT.
...unless it involves some actual, you know, effort on their part.
And in this instance, Large DP Company *is* doing something proactive to
protec
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:44:27 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> David DID NOT say that. He said that "he was shocked to discover"
> Why are you assuming he is under NDA or he is an employee of this
> company?
Let me clarify the situation:
1) I'm the owner of Roaring Penguin, so my boss is unlikel
On 7/9/2014 11:37 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibili
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
> do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
> an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibility.
>
You mean besides NDAs and polici
First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibility.
Secondly, if you think that this is an example of "badness" on Windows
security best practices you sim
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 05:44:34 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> If you deliberately try to sneak past sensible security measures, you
> should not be surprised to be blocked. The attempt by an honest user
> to disguise any $file (he did it on purpose, so he knows there's
> issues with that) is in
On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 22:41 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:03:35 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > So this sounds like you are searching the entire email for this
> > string which just sounds inefficient especially if they use some big
> > attachments.
>
> It's not too b
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:03:35 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> So this sounds like you are searching the entire email for this
> string which just sounds inefficient especially if they use some big
> attachments.
It's not too bad because the regex is simple.
> Since I'm guessing you are using M
On 7/7/2014 5:34 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Replying to myself...
full MSDOGEXE /\n\nTV[opqr]/
Seems to work. :)
So this sounds like you are searching the entire email for this string
which just sounds inefficient especially if they use some big attachments.
Since I'm guessing you are usin
Replying to myself...
> full MSDOGEXE /\n\nTV[opqr]/
Seems to work. :)
Regards,
David.
hes this regex:
^TV[opqr]
but we only want to match that at the very beginning of the B64-encoded
body. Any ideas how to do this with a full rule? Would:
full MSDOGEXE /\n\nTV[opqr]/
do the trick?
Regards,
David.
This is top of my list..
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Constant-Contact-Guide-email-Marketing/dp/0470503416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259777127&sr=8-1
This just snuck into my inbox:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, StrongWebmail wrote:
StrongWebmail launches the world's first email account that can't be
hacked. Nobody gets in unless he gets a phone call.
{snip}
A new service is putting an end to this nightmare. StrongWebmail.com is
the first email ac
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Yes, they are. But I see often legitimate messages like this. They are
probably used when sending something to somebody while having a voice
conversation with him/her. I did it, too.
Giampaolo,
In which case, nothing is lost if the message doe
From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> > Please don't ask SA to become an antivirus or attachment file type
> > security policy enforcement tool. There are already very effective tools
> > to do perform those tasks.
>
>We run only linu
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
Please don't ask SA to become an antivirus or attachment file type
security policy enforcement tool. There are already very effective tools
to do perform those tasks.
We run only linux here, so I ignore Microsoft virii and the like. But,
when I get
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Rich Shepard wrote:
>The past couple of days has seen the arrival of a new mutant
> species of spam: the empty message with a Windows .exe attachment
> that is base64 encoded. SpamAssassin is giving them scores of 0.0.
Please don't ask SA to become an antivirus or attachm
From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>With your help the amount of spam getting past the various
> filters in my
> inbox (and that of my fiancee) has dropped dramatically. I appreciate
> learning from all of you.
>
>The past couple of days has seen the arrival of a new mutant s
From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>With your help the amount of spam getting past the various
> filters in my
> inbox (and that of my fiancee) has dropped dramatically. I appreciate
> learning from all of you.
>
>The past couple of days has seen the arrival of a new mutant s
With your help the amount of spam getting past the various filters in my
inbox (and that of my fiancee) has dropped dramatically. I appreciate
learning from all of you.
The past couple of days has seen the arrival of a new mutant species of
spam: the empty message with a Windows .exe attachme
Hello
In those lines you find comma separated E-Mails containing and normally
thoose line contains my own e-Mail Adress.
a) But sometimes this list contains not only my adress but an known
spam-trap-adress too. For example let the spam be adressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and le
: Ideas
From: "Giampaolo Tomassoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> OMG, listen.
>
>
> We setup regular mail server for companies (mostly exchange servers).
Once
> we setup the mail server I want to send an e-mail from that new mail
server
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I w
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Anybody running something like this?
Yep. Using MIMEDefang.
I have a special address for this. Mails sent (and accepted) to that address
are fed though SpamAssassin (with autolearning turned off) and a return mail
with the results are generated and sent.
This is
ack to the sender with all of the processed info in
it like below, any ideas??
Thanks in advance
Robert
Content analysis details: (1.2 points, -5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
---
From: "Giampaolo Tomassoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OMG, listen.
We setup regular mail server for companies (mostly exchange servers). Once
we setup the mail server I want to send an e-mail from that new mail server
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want that email run through all the
Spamassasin tests the
ost without exception are forged
in spams.
{`,'}Bad BAD idea Robert.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Swan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin Users"
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:42
Subject: Ideas
Hi everyone, I am trying to setup a SPAM serve
Yes, right. But the abuser would simply forward an a-mail with sa scores
to the fake
originator of the triggering e-mail. I think that would be mostly useless
to spammers.
Also, if the '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' address is not too widely disclosed, there
shouldn't be
chance. Finally, if it becames to b
y how to do it.
Loren
- Original Message -
From:
Robert Swan
To: SpamAssassin Users
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:31
PM
Subject: RE: Ideas
OMG, listen.
We setup regular mail
server for companies (mostly exchange servers). Once we setu
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:31:54PM -0400, Robert Swan wrote: OMG, listen. We setup regular mail server for companies (mostly exchange servers). Once we setup the mail server I want to send an e-mail from that new mail server to [1][EMAIL P
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:31:54PM -0400, Robert Swan wrote:
>OMG, listen.
>
>We setup regular mail server for companies (mostly exchange servers).
>Once we setup the mail server I want to send an e-mail from that new
>mail server to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want that email run
>thr
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> Yes, right. But the abuser would simply forward an a-mail with sa
> scores to the fake originator of the triggering e-mail. I think that
> would be mostly useless to spammers.
To spammers, probably not. To mailbombers and other ne'er-do-wells,
it's perfect.
> Also, i
> > this domain and SPAM server would be used only for this purpose
>
> If it's on the Internet, you cannot guarantee this. Spammers and other
> evildoers are constantly scanning for abusable servers. It will be
> found quickly, and as soon as someone finds out how to abuse it, it will
> be abus
sSubject:
RE: Ideas
Wait...what?
You want to setup a server that sends
spam?
Why not just make an email address, stick
it on the usenet and post to a few sites, have it get normal spam, and just
test that one address?
Thanks,
Chris
-Original Message-From: Robert Swan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:32
PMTo: SpamAssassin UsersSubject: RE:
Ideas
OMG, listen.
We setup regular mail
server for companies (mostly exchange servers). Once we setup the mail server
I want to send
Robert Swan wrote:
> Once we setup the mail server I want to send an e-mail from that
> new mail server to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want that email
> run through all the Spamassasin tests then sent back to me with all
> the rules that were triggered etc in the body..
Then mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECT
So, what is so hard about that? Just setup a
server with SA, then $sa_tag_level_deflt = -100.0;
Then pop out your emails to yourself.
From: Robert Swan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:32 PMTo: SpamAssassin
UsersSubject: RE: Ideas
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
4:18 PM
To: Robert Swan; SpamAssassin
Users
Subject: RE: Ideas
Wait...what?
You want to setup a server that sends spam?
Why not just make an email address, stick
it on the usenet and post to a few sites, have
ce he would say
instead of goodbyepeace my brother.
From:
Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:53
PMTo: SpamAssassin
UsersSubject: R:
Ideas
Hi everyone, I am trying to
setup a SPAM server to process inc
www.uribl.com
-Original Message-From: Robert Swan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:56
PMTo: SpamAssassin UsersSubject: RE:
Ideas
I am trying to setup
a SPAM server to test e-mail servers, whether they are setup correctly or
not..we do mail server setups
peace my brother.
From: Giampaolo
Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
3:53 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: R: Ideas
Hi everyone, I am trying to setup a SPAM server to process
incoming email and then send it back to the original
Hi
everyone, I am trying to setup a SPAM server to process incoming email and
then send it back to the original sender.
You are going to do a spam server yourself: often the
source e-mail is forged or is the somebody else's
account...
Spam messages often ask the user to c
“processed” e-mail back to the sender with
all of the processed info in it like below, any ideas??
Thanks in advance
Robert
Content
analysis details: (1.2 points, -5.0 required)
pts rule
name
description
Kris Deugau wrote:
mouss wrote:
It even happens to me from time to time (delete the subject to
replace it, then see an error in the body, switch to correct the
body, then forget that the subject was deleted).
*blink* What happened to the "New Message" button (or whatever it's
been (re)l
mouss wrote:
It
even happens to me from time to time (delete the subject to replace it,
then see an error in the body, switch to correct the body, then forget
that the subject was deleted).
*blink* What happened to the "New Message" button (or whatever it's
been (re)labelled this week)
mouss wrote:
(counter) examples are available on this list (see a message sent on
2006/07/27) and on other lists. I've also seen many corportae mail with
empty subject (forgotten, or considered irrelevant by the sender). It
even happens to me from time to time (delete the subject to replace it,
Michael W Cocke wrote:
I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
subjects are junk?
(counter) examples are available on this list (see
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, David B Funk wrote:
> My MTAs started bouncing all hotmail. ;()
This is a bad thing? :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C
On 31 Aug 2006 20:39:47 -, you wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Michael W Cocke wrote:
>
>> I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
>> buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
>> Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blan
>>
>> I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
>> buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
>> Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
>> subjects are junk? Also, I've got an idea about maybe doing an
>> nslookup on the
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Michael W Cocke wrote:
> I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
> buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
> Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
> subjects are junk?
maybe add a point for mis
>>> Michael W Cocke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/31/06 12:55PM >>>
I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
subjects are junk? Also, I've got an
Michael W Cocke wrote:
I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
subjects are junk?
Ask all my friends who regularly send me emails with
I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
subjects are junk? Also, I've got an idea about maybe doing an
nslookup on the envelope sender do
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Paul Matthews wrote:
at the moment I have the rules_du_jour script running every week and I
have the script below running every night telling SpamAssassin to learn
what I can from the uses junk mail folders, but I still seam to get a lot
of junk mail that gets past the scanne
Create another highest MX record and point it to an IP address that
doesn't go anywhere. I get rid of several hundred thousand spams a day
doing that.
Paul Matthews wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> at the moment I have the rules_du_jour script running every week and I
> have the script below running every night telling SpamAssassin to learn
> what I can from the uses junk mail folders, but I still seam to get a lot
> of junk mail that gets past the scanner
Hi there,
at the moment I have the rules_du_jour script running every week and I
have the script below running every night telling SpamAssassin to learn
what I can from the uses junk mail folders, but I still seam to get a lot
of junk mail that gets past the scanners, can anyone make any suggestio
019
> >
> >
> > bayes debug from older server:SpamAssassin version 2.63
> > debug: bayes token 'mom' => 0.999800086542622
> > debug: bayes token 'Alex' => 0.999279251170047
> > debug: bayes token 'Brunette' => 0.998683760683761
> > debug: bayes token 'nude' => 0.998560747663551
> > debug: bayes token 'brunette' => 0.998560747663551
> > debug: bayes token 'Fucks' => 0.998159362549801
> > debug: bayes token 'stupid' => 0.997909502262443
> > debug: bayes token 'Ebony' => 0.993492957746479
> > debug: bayes token 'slut' => 0.990941176470588
> > debug: bayes token 'Grant' => 0.990941176470588
> > debug: bayes token 'non' => 0.989881305839074
> > debug: bayes token 'nurse' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'sk:SVifSQ,' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'monster' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'UD:UbhjPRQ,hVX,jP' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'Mistress' => 0.978
> > debug: bayes token 'Pam' => 0.978
> > debug: bayes token 'Amateur' => 0.975545163594609
> > debug: bayes token 'Undresses' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'poser' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'Monster' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'fuck' => 0.90580008624735
> > debug: bayes: score = 1
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Scott
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bayes debug from older server:SpamAssassin version 2.63
> > debug: bayes token 'mom' => 0.999800086542622
> > debug: bayes token 'Alex' => 0.999279251170047
> > debug: bayes token 'Brunette' => 0.998683760683761
> > debug: bayes token 'nude' => 0.998560747663551
> > debug: bayes token 'brunette' => 0.998560747663551
> > debug: bayes token 'Fucks' => 0.998159362549801
> > debug: bayes token 'stupid' => 0.997909502262443
> > debug: bayes token 'Ebony' => 0.993492957746479
> > debug: bayes token 'slut' => 0.990941176470588
> > debug: bayes token 'Grant' => 0.990941176470588
> > debug: bayes token 'non' => 0.989881305839074
> > debug: bayes token 'nurse' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'sk:SVifSQ,' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'monster' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'UD:UbhjPRQ,hVX,jP' => 0.985096774193548
> > debug: bayes token 'Mistress' => 0.978
> > debug: bayes token 'Pam' => 0.978
> > debug: bayes token 'Amateur' => 0.975545163594609
> > debug: bayes token 'Undresses' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'poser' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'Monster' => 0.958
> > debug: bayes token 'fuck' => 0.90580008624735
> > debug: bayes: score = 1
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Scott
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
brunette' => 0.998560747663551
debug: bayes token 'Fucks' => 0.998159362549801
debug: bayes token 'stupid' => 0.997909502262443
debug: bayes token 'Ebony' => 0.993492957746479
debug: bayes token 'slut' => 0.990941176470588
debug: bayes tok
debug: bayes token 'Fucks' => 0.998159362549801
debug: bayes token 'stupid' => 0.997909502262443
debug: bayes token 'Ebony' => 0.993492957746479
debug: bayes token 'slut' => 0.990941176470588
debug: bayes token 'Grant' => 0.990941176470588
debug: bayes token 'non' => 0.989881305839074
debug: bayes token 'nurse' => 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token 'sk:SVifSQ,' =>
0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token 'monster' => 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token 'UD:UbhjPRQ,hVX,jP'
=> 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token 'Mistress' =>
0.978
debug: bayes token 'Pam' => 0.978
debug: bayes token 'Amateur' => 0.975545163594609
debug: bayes token 'Undresses' =>
0.958
debug: bayes token 'poser' => 0.958
debug: bayes token 'Monster' => 0.958
debug: bayes token 'fuck' => 0.90580008624735
debug: bayes: score = 1
Any ideas?
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I am sure that SURLB and URIBL would catch this now, but what rules
would you recommend to catch this? We do not use bayes, so this is not
an option right now.
URIBL_AB_SURBL 0.42, URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.26, URIBL_SBL 4.26
Bye,
Raymond.
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
> Received: from 204-161-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.161.204])
> by xxx.atco.ca with smtp (Exim )
> id 1Dpnum-0001Yc-RY; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:56:46 -0600
Deny traffic from \d{1,3}-\d{1,3}-\d{1,3}-\d{1,3}\.fibertel\.com\.ar perhaps.
>
Title: Any ideas on what would catch this?
I am sure that SURLB and URIBL would catch this now, but what rules would you recommend to catch this? We do not use bayes, so this is not an option right now.
Thanks.
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from xxx.atco.com
Where can I get the SARE rule for this?
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:33 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ideas on why this rule isn't working?
> Any ideas on why this isn't working? Th
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ideas on why this rule isn't working?
Johnson, S wrote:
> I have to admit... Some people are actually trying to help me keep bad
> material out of our school district. They are attaching a
> "sexually-explicit: text text text" in the subject line.
> No, it's not... I wonder why this is? I'm on SA 3.0.1 as well.
That rule may not have been in 3.0.1, if I recall correctly. It started as
a SARE rule and moved over at some point. Maybe that was 0.1, maybe 0.2.
Not very long ago though.
Loren
No, it's not... I wonder why this is? I'm on SA 3.0.1 as well.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Peuhkurinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:06 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ideas on why this rule isn't working?
Johnson, S wrot
> Any ideas on why this isn't working? Thanks!
header ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT Subject =~ /\bsexually-explicit/i
describe ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT bad...bad...bad...
score ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT 10
Looks good to me. Did you remember to restart spamd after you put this in a
rules file s
mail to the
> blackhole. Any ideas on why this isn’t working? Thanks!
>
>
>
> header ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT Subject =~ /\bsexually-explicit/i
>
> describe ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT bad...bad...bad...
>
> score ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT 10
Where did you add the rule?
Do you use s
. Any ideas on why this isn’t working? Thanks!
header ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT Subject =~ /\bsexually-explicit/i
describe ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT bad...bad...bad...
score ZXS_SEXUALLY_EXPLICIT 10
Sorry, but I have no idea why
I have to admit… Some people are actually trying to
help me keep bad material out of our school district. They are attaching a “sexually-explicit:
text text text” in the subject line. So I thought that I’d write a
rule to catch that and re-route the mail to the blackhole. Any ideas on
95 matches
Mail list logo
