On 07/02/2014 11:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
A week or so back they briefly listed some of the MailControl.com MTAs,
due to apparent exploits. They were quickly removed, though.
So the message here is that some DNSBL's are better than others about
including and removing addresses quickly and
On 07/02/2014 11:10 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Just a heads-up... that sort of biting comment is probably not welcome
I'm familiar with adapting to the relative insularities of various
lists. But thanks for the head-up, Jim.
-Steve
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Axb wrote:
If a sender's IP is listed @Spamhaus , he has a serious problem reaching
many, many destinations. If he's been expoited, you get good evidence and
fast delisting processsing and I have yet to see a real FP with ZEN.
A week or so back they briefly listed some of
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
>> I suggest you join the SDLU list where you can discuss anti spam
>> philosophy.
>>
>
> Thanks. I suggest that you consult for an ISP-dependent business someday.
> ;-)
>
> It's an education, too.
>
> -Steve
Just a heads-up... that sort of b
I suggest you join the SDLU list where you can discuss anti spam
philosophy.
Thanks. I suggest that you consult for an ISP-dependent business
someday. ;-)
It's an education, too.
-Steve
On 07/02/2014 05:39 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 09:48 AM, Axb wrote:
If an IP is exploited/sends spam and a legitimate msg is rejected then
somebody hasn't done due diligence and I see the reject as legitimated.
The legitimate senders and receivers of the good message, neither of
On 07/02/2014 09:48 AM, Axb wrote:
If an IP is exploited/sends spam and a legitimate msg is rejected then
somebody hasn't done due diligence and I see the reject as legitimated.
The legitimate senders and receivers of the good message, neither of
whom's companies have anything to do with the
On 07/02/2014 04:40 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
You are discussing about DNSBLs but not being specific.
I'm specific in that all the DNSBL's blacklist IP addresses or blocks.
And that in today's world many, many companies share sets of mail
servers with many other companies and individuals.
If
You are discussing about DNSBLs but not being specific.
I'm specific in that all the DNSBL's blacklist IP addresses or blocks.
And that in today's world many, many companies share sets of mail
servers with many other companies and individuals.
I'll let others sell you this Hoover.
No
On 07/02/2014 03:54 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 06:45 AM, Axb wrote:
I'm pretty sure, a huge amount of SA users trust Spamhaus' ZEN at smtp
level for outright rejects.
At this point, I'm using the defaults, other than upping BAYES_999
enough to enough to total to 5.0 when added t
On 07/02/2014 06:45 AM, Axb wrote:
I'm pretty sure, a huge amount of SA users trust Spamhaus' ZEN at smtp
level for outright rejects.
At this point, I'm using the defaults, other than upping BAYES_999
enough to enough to total to 5.0 when added to BAYES_99.
If a sender's IP is listed @S
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
The DNSBL's are problematic because so many ISP's mail servers are on
them. We get quite a few emails from employees at companies who's ISP's
are on Spamhaus lists, or whatever, due to nothing that has anything to
do with them.
I'm pretty sure, a hu
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
But for all the discussion today, we never really had a good talk about
postscreen, which is something I'd like to hear someone expound a bit upon.
probably Wrong list ... review Postfix list archives
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
I'll add you to the list of people telling me that jumping out of an
airplane at 20,000 feet with nothing but a parachute and a pair of
underwear is fun.
Yep... it is...
though you could catch a cold...
On 07/02/2014 03:05 AM, Dave Funk wrote:
Unless you've explicitly disabled them, the network based rules (razor,
pyzor, dcc, DNS based rules, RBLs, URIBLs, etc) constitute an external
'reputation' system to pass judgment on messages.
Actually, DCC is not included in the default due to arbitr
On 07/02/2014 02:39 AM, Dave Funk wrote:
Steve,
For some reason you seem to be hung-up on Bayes "autolearning".
Skip down the thread. I was demonstrated to be wrong. :-)
It it possible that you're confusing it with "Auto-White listing"? (which is now
deprecated and has -nothing- to do wit
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
Well... I just turned on autolearn for a moment, deleted the bayes_* files on
the test account I use, and sent myself a message from my usual outside
account. And new bayes_* files were created. So I was wrong, and I win. More
options.
So now I can pr
On 07/02/2014 02:14 AM, Axb wrote:
YOu don't need to trust me or believe me (I'm not selling anything -
just commenting on what works for me)
Well, I know you know what I meant.
Ever thought of running a newer distro in a VM, only for SA and let
spamass-milter use that?
That would mean you
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Those do not tell you about using file or SQL based databases?
They do. But not specifically with respect to autolearn.
You never
thought about googling for "spamassassin per user" and friends? You
On 07/02/2014 02:02 AM, Axb wrote:
and don't count on that - they may do it the first week, new toy,
but for how long?
Not new. They'd previously been training SA with Evolution for some
years. I have some confidence in many of them doing it right.
Also: take in mind each user's Bay
On 07/02/2014 09:01 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Axb,
I'm not sure I quite believe it. And I'm not quite sure I trust you. But
you do make an attractive pitch. Excellent spam filtering, system-wide,
with no responsibility for training on the part of the users?
YOu don't need to trust me or believe
On 07/02/2014 08:48 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Someone, please convince me that I should turn it on.
autolearn doesn't mean you cannot also train manually...
Should I turn it on and take my "train as ham" entry out of .forward? Or
should I not?
manually training ham from unreviewed data?
bad
Axb,
I'm not sure I quite believe it. And I'm not quite sure I trust you. But
you do make an attractive pitch. Excellent spam filtering, system-wide,
with no responsibility for training on the part of the users?
This sounds like the kind of "too good to be true" message that I'd
expect to re
Well... I just turned on autolearn for a moment, deleted the bayes_*
files on the test account I use, and sent myself a message from my usual
outside account. And new bayes_* files were created. So I was wrong, and
I win. More options.
So now I can proceed to the "what does this mean?" phase.
On 07/02/2014 08:00 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 12:52 AM, Axb wrote:
Site wide bayes works VERY well even under such ugly conditions as
traffic with multiple languages, for ham as well as spam.
Please tell me more.
This goes against Paul Graham's orginal advice, IIRC. And it goes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Autolearn trains the bayes database. The bayes data is stored wherever
you configured it to be stored, in a DBM database or SQL or redis, and
it's per-user if you configure per-user Bayes databases and sca
On 07/02/2014 12:52 AM, Axb wrote:
Site wide bayes works VERY well even under such ugly conditions as
traffic with multiple languages, for ham as well as spam.
Please tell me more.
This goes against Paul Graham's orginal advice, IIRC. And it goes
against intuition. Then again. Bayesian stat
On 07/02/2014 07:37 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Lets turn this around? Can you prove autolearn was ever done to memory?
I'm not really interested in proving anything. I'm interested in being
convinced that autolearn is individual file-based when spamc is run as
the individual user.
It's in th
Lets turn this around? Can you prove autolearn was ever done to memory?
I'm not really interested in proving anything. I'm interested in being
convinced that autolearn is individual file-based when spamc is run as
the individual user.
I'm not quite sure how that would affect my strategy.
On 07/02/2014 07:19 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Those do not tell you about using file or SQL based databases?
They do. But not specifically with respect to autolearn.
You never
thought about googling for "spamassassin per user" and friends?
On 07/01/2014 11:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Autolearn trains the bayes database. The bayes data is stored wherever
you configured it to be stored, in a DBM database or SQL or redis, and
it's per-user if you configure per-user Bayes databases and scan emails
using different usernames (vs. a glob
On 07/01/2014 11:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Those do not tell you about using file or SQL based databases?
They do. But not specifically with respect to autolearn.
You never
thought about googling for "spamassassin per user" and friends? You
never checked the SA wiki?
I have, inde
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:40 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
> > http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
>
> I've read those over and o
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:18 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 09:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > Frankly, it appears you don't understand what auto-learning is.
>
> So please specify, explicitly, what it is. I asked some specific
> questions about it. And I'm very interested in
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
http: //spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
http:
//spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
I've read those over and over. It never says any
On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
I've read those over and over. It never says anything about where the
data is maintained, or
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 20:53 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
> > auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
>
> BTW, that reminds me of a quest
On 07/01/2014 09:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Frankly, it appears you don't understand what auto-learning is.
So please specify, explicitly, what it is. I asked some specific
questions about it. And I'm very interested in the answers.
Is auto-learn still system-wide? I'd need it to a
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 20:36 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
> > auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
>
> SA's autolearn behavior doesn'
On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
BTW, that reminds me of a question I had been meaning to ask on the
list. Autolearn. There's very
On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
SA's autolearn behavior doesn't make much sense. I have no confidence in it.
This method shields
41 matches
Mail list logo
