Per Jessen wrote:
> I got the following reject this morning:
>
> : host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550
> Dynamic
> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam
> 1.0.4-9.1 (http://www.magicspam.com/).
>
>
> Do a reverse look up of 212.25
On 11/10/10 2:45 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.11.10 08:23, Per Jessen wrote:
I got the following reject this morning:
: host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550 Dynamic
Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam 1.0.4-9.1
(http://www.magicspam.com
ample.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550
>>>> Dynamic
>>>> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam
>>>> 1.0.4-9.1
>>>> (http://www.magicspam.com/).
>>> 40.14.25.212.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN CNAME
>>> 40.32-63.14.25.2
;> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam
>>> 1.0.4-9.1
>>> (http://www.magicspam.com/).
>> 40.14.25.212.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN CNAME
>> 40.32-63.14.25.212.in-addr.arpa.
>>
>> well, the 40.32-63.14.25.212.in-addr.arpa is sure
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.11.10 08:23, Per Jessen wrote:
>> I got the following reject this morning:
>>
>> : host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550
>> Dynamic
>> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam
>>
On 10.11.10 08:23, Per Jessen wrote:
> I got the following reject this morning:
>
> : host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550 Dynamic
> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam 1.0.4-9.1
> (http://www.magicspam.com/).
40.14.25.212.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN
I got the following reject this morning:
: host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550 Dynamic
Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected by MagicSpam 1.0.4-9.1
(http://www.magicspam.com/).
Do a reverse look up of 212.25.14.40, and you'll see that it's perfectly
alrig
en doing some kind of
hand-off to the real mail server. For 90+% of the users out there, no
configuration options would be needed, and for a good number of the
rest, a few menus could handle the bits that can't be resolved themselves.
Traffic Control's selective tarpits are enough to sto
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 12:51 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:46:42 +0100
> "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
> > > linuxmagic wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Incidently the point about backscatter i
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:46:42 +0100
"rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
> > linuxmagic wrote:
> >
>
> > Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
> > approach of classifying, and then
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:45 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, linuxmagic wrote:
>
> I really like this quote from their sales web site:
>
> "Now you can have MagicSpam spam protection for your Postfix (Linux)
> Mail Servers. Complete
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
> linuxmagic wrote:
>
> Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
> approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam folder,
> produces zero backscatter from spam. Backs
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:07:09 +1200
Jason Haar wrote:
> On 09/24/2009 10:36 AM, RW wrote:
> >
> > None of that really distinguishes it from SpamAssassin, people have
> > been using SA that way for many years.
> >
> This is turning into a "I don't understand why everyone doesn't do
> everything
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:00:20 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 15:54 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > RW wrote:
> > > Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
> > > approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam
> > > folder, prod
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, linuxmagic wrote:
>
> Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions. MagicSpam is
> NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been developing Anti-Spam
> solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for quite some time, focusing o
On 09/24/2009 10:36 AM, RW wrote:
>
> None of that really distinguishes it from SpamAssassin, people have
> been using SA that way for many years.
>
This is turning into a "I don't understand why everyone doesn't do
everything themselves" thread.
Face it: by being on this list we have all decla
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 15:54 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
> > approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam folder,
> > produces zero backscatter from spam. Backscatter is actually caused by
> > rej
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT) wrote:
>
> > Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions.
Indeed, it is. A *year* old.
> > MagicSpam is NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been
Thanks for poi
RW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
linuxmagic wrote:
Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions.
MagicSpam is NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been
developing Anti-Spam solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for
quite some time, focusing on the
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
linuxmagic wrote:
>
> Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions.
> MagicSpam is NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been
> developing Anti-Spam solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for
> quite some time,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 23.09.09 10:40, linuxmagic wrote:
Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions. MagicSpam is
NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been developing Anti-Spam
solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for quite some time, focusing on the
On 23.09.09 10:40, linuxmagic wrote:
> Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions. MagicSpam is
> NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been developing Anti-Spam
> solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for quite some time, focusing on the
> SMTP trans
Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions. MagicSpam is
NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been developing Anti-Spam
solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for quite some time, focusing on the
SMTP transaction layer. This approach gives a more 'Zero Day&#
Well,
since many guys are recommending "what they use" (IronPort, Barracuda) I
thought I might bring BarricadeMX from Fort Systems into the game. Have
a look at them. It is _very_ efficient and can be configured to use
SpamAssassin as well. Comes with a very easy install for CentOS 5.2.
Kind reg
en they shouldn't be running it.
"no clue how to use it and what it's designed to do" - sounds like they need
some education, these naïve people that you give Spamassassin to.
Cheers,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
> At 09:44 12-09-2008, Jesse Stroik wrote:
> There is SpamAssassin the project and SpamAssassin the software. The
> project, under the aegis of the Apache Software Foundation, provides
> a framework to support open source software development to deliver an
> enterprise-grade, freely available so
I have heard that the sonicwall email security appliance is pretty good. It
gets expensive per user, but they have desktop controls in outlook.
The other one is the service offered by mcaffee enterprise... I don't
remember the name, but its essentially a service they host and your mail
server o
Mouss,
mouss wrote:
It's more than a "common user" question. while I can build an
*BSD/Debian/Centos box to do what I want, I did buy "COTS" firewalls,
backup servers, ... etc.
You're not talking about ease of setup, you're talking about quality and
reliability of product. Spamassassin doe
At 09:44 12-09-2008, Jesse Stroik wrote:
setups if they want the largest possible customer base. Consider
the difference between the primary goals of spamassassin and
arbitrary commercial anti-spam solution:
Spamassassin: To facilitate a community effort with the primary goal
of accurate red
Jesse Stroik wrote:
Karl,
Ease of setup and use are not the primary reason for purchasing any
product, IMO.
Yes, but you aren't the common user. Many commercial products *must*
have oversimplified setups if they want the largest possible customer
base.
It's more than a "common user"
Excellent points. I'm glad I'm not a 'common user'...
KLP
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Jesse Stroik wrote:
Karl,
Ease of setup and use are not the primary reason for purchasing any
product, IMO.
Yes, but you aren't the common user. Many commercial products *must* have
oversimplified setups if
Karl,
Ease of setup and use are not the primary reason for purchasing any
product, IMO.
Yes, but you aren't the common user. Many commercial products *must*
have oversimplified setups if they want the largest possible customer
base. Consider the difference between the primary goals of sp
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Karl Pearson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, fchan wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I don't have experience with this product.
I do have limited experience with Barracuda Networks appliance and I think
is a great product for an e-mail filter which I had experienced with my
friend to set up
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, fchan wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I don't have experience with this product.
I do have limited experience with Barracuda Networks appliance and I think is
a great product for an e-mail filter which I had experienced with my friend
to set up on their network & email server. It is easy
ram schrieb:
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 15:25 -0700, fchan wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I don't have experience with this product.
I do have limited experience with Barracuda Networks appliance and I
think is a great product for an e-mail filter which I had experienced
with my friend to set up on their network
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 15:25 -0700, fchan wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry I don't have experience with this product.
> I do have limited experience with Barracuda Networks appliance and I
> think is a great product for an e-mail filter which I had experienced
> with my friend to set up on their network & em
he.org
Subject: Re: MagicSpam
Rob,
Spamassassin is more difficult to configure because commercial products don't
have the luxury of requiring more sysadmin configuration. They have to be easy
or no one would buy them. The disadvantage of them being easier is that they
have less flexib
Hi,
Sorry I don't have experience with this product.
I do have limited experience with Barracuda Networks appliance and I
think is a great product for an e-mail filter which I had experienced
with my friend to set up on their network & email server. It is easy
to set up, configure and maintain
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anybody have any experience with this product?
>
It appears *noone* has any experience with it... Google finds only 2
links and they are on the company's own homepage.
> My company wants to replace SpamAssassin with this product,
Rob,
Spamassassin is more difficult to configure because commercial products
don't have the luxury of requiring more sysadmin configuration. They
have to be easy or no one would buy them. The disadvantage of them
being easier is that they have less flexibility, less information and
less sit
ROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:12 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: MagicSpam
Does anybody have any experience with this product?
My company wants to replace SpamAssassin with this product, due to
SpamAssassin being not being up to par other products.
My argum
Does anybody have any experience with this product?
My company wants to replace SpamAssassin with this product, due to
SpamAssassin being not being up to par other products.
My argument is that people we give SpamAssassin to have no clue how to
use it and what it's designed to do, therefore
42 matches
Mail list logo
