On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 08:25 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> On 5/19/2010 6:08 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> >>
> >> All my post contained was my scores for the spam sample he posted. Any
> >> reason how/why this happened? Here's the actual post:
> >>
> >> http://pastebin.com/gSuHGqXa
> >>
>
On 5/19/2010 6:08 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> All my post contained was my scores for the spam sample he posted. Any
>> reason how/why this happened? Here's the actual post:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/gSuHGqXa
>>
>
>
> The scores also contain URIs that were matched against URIBLs so a
Chris wrote:
All my post contained was my scores for the spam sample he posted. Any
reason how/why this happened? Here's the actual post:
http://pastebin.com/gSuHGqXa
The scores also contain URIs that were matched against URIBLs so any
email containing them will hit again as the "spammy" U
I posted a message to the list showing how the spam containing % in the
subject scored on my system. A bit later checking my failed messages
folder I saw this:
This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of i
Geert Batsleer a écrit :
> 2009/3/7 mouss mailto:mo...@ml.netoyen.net>>
>
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>
> >>
> >> header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
> >> descrbibe FROM_CASINO Casino Club Casino filter 04/03/09
>
> and ii should be "describe
2009/3/7 mouss
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>
> >>
> >> header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
> >> descrbibe FROM_CASINO Casino Club Casino filter 04/03/09
>
> and ii should be "describe", not "descrbibe"...
>
>
> >> score FROM_CASINO 10.0
> >
> > \V is unknow
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> On 05.03.09 16:01, Geert Batsleer wrote:
>> I added this to my local.cf, is this syntax OK or will this block 'Club'
>> 'Casion' and 'Vegas' if used seperate?
>>
>>
>> header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
>> descrbibe FROM_CASINO Casino
On 05.03.09 16:01, Geert Batsleer wrote:
> I added this to my local.cf, is this syntax OK or will this block 'Club'
> 'Casion' and 'Vegas' if used seperate?
>
>
> header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
> descrbibe FROM_CASINO Casino Club Casino filter 04/03/09
> score FRO
On Thu, March 5, 2009 16:01, Geert Batsleer wrote:
> header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\bVegas Club Casino\b/i
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
I added this to my local.cf, is this syntax OK or will this block 'Club'
'Casion' and 'Vegas' if used seperate?
header FROM_CASINO From:name =~ /\Vegas Club Casino\b/i
descrbibe FROM_CASINO Casino Club Casino filter 04/03/09
score FROM_CASINO 10.0
I got the following response from
nt: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
>
> On Friday 29 June 2007 12:41, Don O'Neil wrote:
> > I've been getting these messages fairly regularly lately. We're
> > running SA
> >
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
On Friday 29 June 2007 12:41, Don O'Neil wrote:
> I've been getting these messages fairly regularly lately. We're
> running SA
> 3.1.8 and Exim 4.6.6 on FreeBSD 6.1. I'
On Friday 29 June 2007 12:41, Don O'Neil wrote:
> I've been getting these messages fairly regularly lately. We're running SA
> 3.1.8 and Exim 4.6.6 on FreeBSD 6.1. I've changed the exim->SA config to go
> through a pipe rather than the traditional way, set it to only scan
> messages <100K, turned o
I've been getting these messages fairly regularly lately. We're running SA
3.1.8 and Exim 4.6.6 on FreeBSD 6.1. I've changed the exim->SA config to go
through a pipe rather than the traditional way, set it to only scan messages
<100K, turned off Bayes AutoLearn because it was creating token files i
Don Saklad wrote:
How do novice end users, neophytes examine things and determine
what is the mail delivery agent ?...
They ask the system administrators.
as a general understanding
of the particular system at hand.
For this they might have to read the documentation.
Regards
/Jonas
Mike Jackson wrote:
>> mail delivery agent for a the system at hand?...
> Just connect to port 25 and observe the banner.
That normally won't work. The banner normally only includes the mail *transfer*
agent and not the mail *delivery* agent.
Even though many MTAs have a builtin
How do you do it?...
> Just connect to port 25 and observe the banner. Not 100%
> foolproof, but most of them either identify themselves
> (Sendmail) or have a recognizable banner (Postfix, Qmail,
> Exchange).
Thank you Mike Jackson !
How would, where would a mail transfer agent tell you the
mail delivery agent for a the system at hand?...
Just connect to port 25 and observe the banner. Not 100% foolproof, but most
of them either identify themselves (Sendmail) or have a recognizable banner
(Postfix, Qmail, Exchange).
At 16:40 04-12-2006, Don Saklad wrote:
How would, where would a mail transfer agent tell you the
mail delivery agent for a the system at hand?...
You are using Exim as the mail transfer agent. Exim comes with its
own mail delivery agent. The mail delivery agent would be specified
in the
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Evan Platt wrote:
At 12:20 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
How do novice end users, neophytes examine things and determine
what is the mail delivery agent ?... as a general understanding
of the particular system at hand.
This is with respect to setting up a secondary mail file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Saklad wrote:
> How would, where would a mail transfer agent tell you the
> mail delivery agent for a the system at hand?...
>
> Developing instructive information without acronyms,
> without industry jargon that complete nov
How would, where would a mail transfer agent tell you the
mail delivery agent for a the system at hand?...
Developing instructive information without acronyms,
without industry jargon that complete novices, neophytes
can use easily is the heart of the matter.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:32:44PM -0800, Evan Platt wrote:
> Unless I'm not understanding you... You could attempt to telnet to
> the mail server on port 25, some will say for example:
> 220 example.com ESMTP Postfix
Assuming the MTA doesn't tell you (I think most of them do), you can do
somethi
At 12:20 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
How do novice end users, neophytes examine things and determine
what is the mail delivery agent ?... as a general understanding
of the particular system at hand.
This is with respect to setting up a secondary mail file for
screened spam type messages that later
How do novice end users, neophytes examine things and determine
what is the mail delivery agent ?... as a general understanding
of the particular system at hand.
This is with respect to setting up a secondary mail file for
screened spam type messages that later can be checked over for
any false
Maccie Roux schrieb:
Hi there, I'm running Fedora core 5 with postfix spamassassin and amavis.
The mail is being delivered to the mailbox and not the maildir. Can
^^
someone please
help me.
Mailbox (the
Hi there, I'm running Fedora core 5 with postfix spamassassin and amavis.
The mail is being delivered to the mailbox and not the maildir. Can
someone please
help me.
Thanks
Maccie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nix writes:
> (The real problem is that this list is spamfiltered at all: it's
> ridiculous to spamfilter a list on which spams are regularly dissected.)
FWIW, it's now filtered with a higher threshold, of 10.0.
- --j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Jim Knuth wrote:
Hallo und Guten Tag Loren,
Heute (am 30.10.2005 - 17:36 Uhr)
schriebst Du:
A "real name" mean: The NAME of the Emailclient!
TheBat
Outlook Express
MS Outlook
Pegasus Mail
and so on
Nope, sorry. It has to do with the From address format:
"My Real Name" [EMA
Hallo und Guten Tag Loren,
Heute (am 30.10.2005 - 17:36 Uhr)
schriebst Du:
>> A "real name" mean: The NAME of the Emailclient!
>>
>> TheBat
>> Outlook Express
>> MS Outlook
>> Pegasus Mail
>> and so on
> Nope, sorry. It has to do with the From address format:
> "My Real Name" [EMAIL PR
> A "real name" mean: The NAME of the Emailclient!
>
> TheBat
> Outlook Express
> MS Outlook
> Pegasus Mail
> and so on
Nope, sorry. It has to do with the From address format:
"My Real Name" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Real Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:26 AM 10/30/2005, you wrote:
A "real name" mean: The NAME of the Emailclient!
TheBat
Outlook Express
MS Outlook
Pegasus Mail
and so on
Umm.. No. No Real Name in the spamassassin rules means no real name
configured of the user, i.e.
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wouldn't score, but
<[E
Hallo und Guten Tag Greg,
Heute (am 30.10.2005 - 16:07 Uhr)
schriebst Du:
>>
>> Somethings odd here. The above message, when it arrived here from the
>> list, did have a real name ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) in the headers, all
>> lines of it except those that refered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to the
Hi,
although most users have a real name in their email address, its absence alone
should not create
a high enough score for rejection. Indeed, the defaults seem to be low
score NO_REAL_NAME 0.124 0.178 0.336 0.007
I would like to see a test for "low probability" real names with a higher score
:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Michael Monnerie moaned:
> On Sonntag, 30. Oktober 2005 08:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and
>> completely traceable to me. It has also never been involved in
>> sending spam. If the anti-spam community start misbehavin
>
> Somethings odd here. The above message, when it arrived here from the
> list, did have a real name ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) in the headers, all
> lines of it except those that refered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to the
> intermediate handlers of the message. So it looks to me as if he is
> doing it r
On Sunday 30 October 2005 05:37, Michael Monnerie wrote:
>On Sonntag, 30. Oktober 2005 08:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and
>> completely traceable to me. It has also never been involved in
>> sending spam. If the anti-spam community start
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and completely
traceable to me. It has also never been involved in sending spam. If
the anti-spam community start misbehaving the future is indeed bleak.
your mail goes through 217.155.197.248, which calls i
Am Sonntag, 30. Oktober 2005 08:38 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and
> completely traceable to me. It has also never been involved in
> sending spam. If the anti-spam community start misbehaving the
> future is indeed bleak. ==John ffitch
i
On Sonntag, 30. Oktober 2005 08:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and
> completely traceable to me. It has also never been involved in
> sending spam. If the anti-spam community start misbehaving the
> future is indeed bleak. ==John ffitch
Your
This domain is not a dialup and is a static IP address, and completely
traceable to me. It has also never been involved in sending spam. If
the anti-spam community start misbehaving the future is indeed bleak.
==John ffitch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> > OK, the line was:
> >
> >> Oct 29 10:02:55 asf spamd[84538]: spamd: result: . 6 -
> >> HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,NO_REAL_NAME
> >> scantime=0.9,size=2039,user=smtpd,uid=99,required_score=10.0,
> >> rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rpo
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, the line was:
Oct 29 10:02:55 asf spamd[84538]: spamd: result: . 6 -
HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,NO_REAL_NAME
scantime=0.9,size=2039,user=smtpd,uid=99,required_score=10.0,
rhost=localhost,r
lope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivery-date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:02:58 +0100
> X-Failed-Recipients: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
> From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning
Another attempt
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:02:58 +0100
X-Failed-Recipients: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
Folks,
I'm running into a weird problem and I don't know what the cause is.
I'm running Qmail / Qmail-Scanner 1.22 / SA 2.63 / Clam AV 75.1
I have messages that all have the subject "Mail delivery failed", which the
message scores a negative number by SA and is d
. I could use SMTP auth
but it's just simpler this way.
From: snowjack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 9/21/2004 1:13 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: What the Hell? Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to
sender
It is
jdow wrote:
> From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> A quick check of http://dsbl.org/listing?ip=207.217.120.116 shows
>> earthlink's server being listed for being a single-hop open relays
>> and insecure formmail scripts. Looks like earthlink relays for
>> o1.com users; you may want to
morticia wrote:
I wish they'd use it and make it the default. But I do not wish to pay
even more for my account because of the increased stupid luser support
calls that would generate. Getting plain old dialup or DSL working is
beyond most people. And many of them do not want to use something speci
From: "snowjack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> jdow wrote:
> > My understanding is that Earthlink servers are "open" so that people
> > who are mobile can still send mail through their Earthlink accounts.
> > The way they handle the spam issue is a tarpit operation. The more
> > mails you send in a given
jdow wrote:
My understanding is that Earthlink servers are "open" so that people
who are mobile can still send mail through their Earthlink accounts.
The way they handle the spam issue is a tarpit operation. The more
mails you send in a given interval the slower the mail processes. So
Earthlink mai
To be fair to the blacklisters,
There are many ways to authenticate smtp before allowing remote senders. Perhaps Earthlink does use its own method, but maybe it is just not doing enough.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:06, jdow wrote:
From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A quick check of h
From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A quick check of http://dsbl.org/listing?ip=207.217.120.116 shows
> earthlink's server being listed for being a single-hop open relays and
> insecure formmail scripts. Looks like earthlink relays for o1.com users;
> you may want to ask DSBL how trusted t
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:16:58 -0700 "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache is using a DoS tool as a blacklist?
>
> Send email from your ISP to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and watch the
> results. They say one email to that address is sufficient to cause
> the entire relay path to be marked as spamm
Apache is using a DoS tool as a blacklist?
Send email from your ISP to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and watch the
results. They say one email to that address is sufficient to cause
the entire relay path to be marked as spammers.
{+_+}
- Original Message -
From: "Mail Delivery System&quo
55 matches
Mail list logo
