d.hill wrote:
>
> Have you attempted doing a local (on your server) lookup of the IP
> address in question? What DNS servers are your server using for
> resolution?
>
It turns out your comment about a DNS problem on my server was spot-on. The
first ns was down - apparently if 'dns_availab
Quoting Jeff_47 :
d.hill wrote:
Quoting Jeff_47:
I have an odd situation - it seems like I must be missing something but
I
don't know what.
In my local.cf, I had the following lines:
dns_available yes
skip_rbl_checks 0
I noticed that no RBL checks were being run.
If I change dns_availa
d.hill wrote:
>
>>Quoting Jeff_47:
>
>>>
>>> I have an odd situation - it seems like I must be missing something but
>>> I
>>> don't know what.
>>>
>>> In my local.cf, I had the following lines:
>>> dns_available yes
>>> skip_rbl_checks 0
>>>
>>> I noticed that no RBL checks were being run.
>>
Quoting Jeff_47 :
I have an odd situation - it seems like I must be missing something but I
don't know what.
In my local.cf, I had the following lines:
dns_available yes
skip_rbl_checks 0
I noticed that no RBL checks were being run.
If I change dns_available to "test" or comment out the line
decoder wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Nearly all positive-score RBLs will check all untrusted hosts in
Received: headers, except the DUL RBLs and XBL which only check the
first untrusted because they are designed to be used in that manner.
ie: SBL will be tested against *ALL* untrusted hosts, in
Matt Kettler wrote:
Nearly all positive-score RBLs will check all untrusted hosts in
Received: headers, except the DUL RBLs and XBL which only check the
first untrusted because they are designed to be used in that manner.
ie: SBL will be tested against *ALL* untrusted hosts, including the IP
decoder wrote:
Hello,
on our private mail server we now have quite some forwards from
freemail providers like yahoo, gmx and such. This wasn't a big problem
previously but there is quite some spam arriving now over those
forwards that isn't tagged as such (mainly I think because RBLs can't
Matt Adair wrote:
Hoping somebody out there can help. After noticing a dramatic increase
in male enhancement spam lately, I started to investigate what was
going on and it would appear that none of the default RBLs are getting
checked. I've done everything that I can think of and I just can't
In a lot of cases, that seems to boil down to "sending a legitimate
email to a recipient who once *asked* to be sent such email, who has
now forgotten they signed up in the first place". :(
There's not much a sender can do about that - particularly for
periodic emails of the type *many* c
Kris Deugau wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
The SpamCop BL is a fair representation of the sending IPs of the
messages that its users are reporting as spam. One of your goals
as an ESP should be to not get perceived as spam in the mailboxes
of those users. If the users get your messages and report the
Jeff Chan wrote:
The SpamCop BL is a fair representation of the sending IPs of the
messages that its users are reporting as spam. One of your goals
as an ESP should be to not get perceived as spam in the mailboxes
of those users. If the users get your messages and report them
as spam (via SpamC
On Saturday, December 30, 2006, 10:32:34 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> SpamCop is not a Feedback Loop in the sense of what AOL and
> others offer, but have you both signed up for their reporting
> service?
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/94.html
>> How can I get SpamCop reports about my netwo
On Saturday, December 30, 2006, 10:40:21 AM, Jason Faulkner wrote:
> I will completely concur with the statement about spamcop being too
> aggressive -- I work with a company that sends out ~10 million messages
> per month per ip (we're an ESP) and we can get listed on Spamcop for as
> few as 2
On Saturday, December 30, 2006, 8:24:03 PM, Jason Faulkner wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>> Jason Oriente wrote:
>>> It is very easy to deal with SpamCop's aggressive approach to
>>> blacklisting Email them and explain what you do and supply all of
>>> your IP addresses.
>>>
>>> I manage the operat
John Rudd wrote:
Jason Oriente wrote:
It is very easy to deal with SpamCop's aggressive approach to
blacklisting Email them and explain what you do and supply all of
your IP addresses.
I manage the operations of the ISP I work for and was dealing with
almost daily blacklistings until I emai
Jason Oriente wrote:
It is very easy to deal with SpamCop's aggressive approach to
blacklisting Email them and explain what you do and supply all of
your IP addresses.
I manage the operations of the ISP I work for and was dealing with
almost daily blacklistings until I emailed them explainin
.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Jason Faulkner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:20 PM
To: jdow
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: RBLs
>> I will completely concur with the statement about spamcop being too
>> aggressive -- I w
I will completely concur with the statement about spamcop being too
aggressive -- I work with a company that sends out ~10 million
messages per month per ip (we're an ESP) and we can get listed on
Spamcop for as few as 20 complaints on one of those IPs, and there's
absolutely no feedback mech
From: "Jason Faulkner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
we are using sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net, bl.spamcop.net
and list.dsbl.org in this particular order. The results are available
at:
http://graph.noc.ntua.gr/a/graph_529.html
Sbl-xbl(zen).spamhaus.org being first in the list and more comp
we are using sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net, bl.spamcop.net
and list.dsbl.org in this particular order. The results are available
at:
http://graph.noc.ntua.gr/a/graph_529.html
Sbl-xbl(zen).spamhaus.org being first in the list and more complete
gets the most hits. Dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net
On 12/30/06, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Larry Nedry wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
>>> What are you using?
>> Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs
>> that I have tried have had too man
On Friday, December 29, 2006, 1:25:10 PM, Larry Nedry wrote:
> On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
>>What are you using?
> Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs that I
> have tried have had too many false positives to be useful for my
> requirements.
> Whic
Sander Holthaus wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Rudd wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Larry Nedry wrote:
On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
What are you using?
Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the
RBLs that I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Rudd wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Larry Nedry wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
What are you using?
>>> Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the
>>> RBLs that I have t
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Larry Nedry wrote:
On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
What are you using?
Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs
that I have tried have had too many false positives to be useful
for my requirements.
Which RBLs
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Larry Nedry wrote:
> On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
> >What are you using?
>
> Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs
> that I have tried have had too many false positives to be useful
> for my requirements.
>
> Which RBLs do the r
Larry Nedry wrote:
On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
What are you using?
Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs that
I have tried have had too many false positives to be useful for my
requirements.
Which RBLs do the rest of you folks feel comfortabl
On 12/29/06 at 2:50 PM -0500 Vernon Webb wrote:
>What are you using?
Currently I am using only zen.spamhaus.org. The rest of the RBLs that I
have tried have had too many false positives to be useful for my
requirements.
Which RBLs do the rest of you folks feel comfortable using?
Nedry
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:13:07 -0500, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd go verify that the plugin is actually 3.0.1 versus 3.0.0. The only
> (or easiest?) way you can tell is looking at line 169.
-- /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm, line 169
next
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 09:08:01AM -0800, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> > > CPAN_FILEF/FE/FELICITY/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.0.tar.gz
> >
> > but you're running 3.0.0...?
>
> No, that's just what cpan says for the URIDNSBL plug in. That was one
> of those confusing bits, but I figured if cpan says
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:02:02 -0500, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:51:57AM -0800, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> > bodyURIBL_SBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
>
> Ok, so that's a 3.0.1 uridnsbl call (3.0.0 was header, 3.0.1+ is body).
>
> > cpa
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:51:57AM -0800, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> bodyURIBL_SBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
Ok, so that's a 3.0.1 uridnsbl call (3.0.0 was header, 3.0.1+ is body).
> cpan> i Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
> CPAN_FILEF/FE/FELICITY/Mail-SpamAssa
At 12:30 PM 11/4/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've installed NET:DNS, but do I need to put an option in local.cf in
order for
SA to query RBLs ?.
No.
By default, SA will use RBLS provided that Net::DNS is installed and
appears to be working (it tests with a quick DNS lookup of a major domain)
33 matches
Mail list logo
