They do if you're offering mail service to a large number of users. They
login to a phished mailbox, send new phishingmails to that mailbox and
check the headers if they can see which rules are hit. Then they adapt
the phishingmail to get a lower score until they are below the spam
threshold. T
On 27.05.24 23:10, Thomas Barth via users wrote:
for months I have been waiting for the type of SPAM I receive to be
captured by the DNS block lists. But nothing is happening. I have long
since fed Spamassassin with these SPAMs. What else can I do? I have
even activated HOSTKARMA-black/brown. D
> for months I have been waiting for the type of SPAM I receive to be
> captured by the DNS block lists. But nothing is happening. I have long
> since fed Spamassassin with these SPAMs. What else can I do?
put your spam score lower? I don't think you will get many false positives when
you put it
W dniu 09.09.2014 o 23:53, Jose Borges Ferreira pisze:
> Hi Marcin,
>
> I'm affiliated with Mailspike and just want to say that we have
> changed the contact form so you now have a option specify that you are
> contacting as Self-employed or private.
>
> We have also configured ab...@mailspike.or
Hi Marcin,
I'm affiliated with Mailspike and just want to say that we have
changed the contact form so you now have a option specify that you are
contacting as Self-employed or private.
We have also configured ab...@mailspike.org if you need to contact directly.
Regarding your original problem,
On 09/09/2014 11:39 AM, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
> W dniu 29.08.2014 o 23:36, Dave Warren pisze:
>> On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
>>> So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private
>>> spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where
>>> I'm h
W dniu 29.08.2014 o 23:36, Dave Warren pisze:
> On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
>> So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private
>> spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where
>> I'm hired for reporting spam. What if I would be unemploye
Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private
spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where
I'm hired for reporting spam. What if I would be unemployed? Then I
would have to lie about c
On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private
spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where
I'm hired for reporting spam. What if I would be unemployed? Then I
would have to lie about company? IMHO it is t
W dniu 28.08.2014 o 11:20, Reindl Harald pisze:
>
> Am 28.08.2014 um 11:11 schrieb Marcin Mirosław:
>> I've noticed growing volume of emails listed by mailspike. Usually it's
>> spam listed as "good reputation". On his webpage I can see only page
>> http://mailspike.org/contact.html , they want to
Am 28.08.2014 um 11:11 schrieb Marcin Mirosław:
> I've noticed growing volume of emails listed by mailspike. Usually it's
> spam listed as "good reputation". On his webpage I can see only page
> http://mailspike.org/contact.html , they want to fill many personal
> information, I don't want to send
On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 02:25 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
> Martin Gregorie gregorie.org> writes:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 01:26 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
> >
> > > Notification help raise victims' security
> > > awareness, and motivate them to fix vulnerabilites within their computers.
> >
Martin Gregorie gregorie.org> writes:
>
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 01:26 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
>
> > Notification help raise victims' security
> > awareness, and motivate them to fix vulnerabilites within their computers.
> >
> I have my doubts about this. I have friends who help at retiree'
> It would likely be a good idea to block IP's in this list from using
> authenticated SMTP to relay not?
Definitely not. We did so one week for testing. And had a lot of trouble with
customers espacially using mobile/smartphones.
Don't do this. This rbl does only make sense if you have diff
On 11/21/2012 01:44 AM, Matt wrote:
Spamhaus already do this. It's called the Exploits Block List (XBL):
http://www.spamhaus.org/xbl/
To quote:
The Spamhaus Exploits Block List (XBL) is a realtime database of IP
addresses of hijacked PCs infected by illegal 3rd party exploits, including
open p
At 16:44 20-11-2012, Matt wrote:
authenticated SMTP to relay not? Is there a way in apache .htaccess
to block access based on xbl.spamhaus.org? I want to block exploited
IP's from webmail etc as well.
http://www.lucaercoli.it/mod_spamhaus.html
Regards,
-sm
> Spamhaus already do this. It's called the Exploits Block List (XBL):
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/xbl/
>
> To quote:
>
> The Spamhaus Exploits Block List (XBL) is a realtime database of IP
> addresses of hijacked PCs infected by illegal 3rd party exploits, including
> open proxies (HTTP, socks, An
On 11/20/12 4:51 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Don't get me wrong, outbound spam filtering is a great idea, but it
should be done by the MSA, not at the ISP level as ISPs have no clue
as to what type of activity is legitimate or not for a particular user.
On 20/11/12 20:26, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Easy enough to block #25 by default -- turn it on for anyone who asks.
Indeed.
I think the idea of a botnet black hole list is great, really.
Spamhaus already do this. It's called the Exploits Block List (XBL):
http://www.spamhaus.org/xbl/
To quo
On 11/20/2012 07:17, David F. Skoll wrote:
Would you approve of a Ralph Nader-like approach of suing Microsoft
for knowingly producing defective and insecure software? Detroit was
shamed, bullied and sued into improving the safety of its cars; do you
think that could work with Microsoft?
Given
On 11/20/2012 04:29, Jason Ede wrote:
However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would help... Ideally
they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent through their SMTP engine
which would do some basic spam checks...
Please don't ever suggest blocking port 587. Using port
On 11/20/2012 4:29 AM, Jason Ede wrote:
However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would help... Ideally
they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent through their SMTP engine
which would do some basic spam checks...
Easy enough to block #25 by default -- turn it on for
On 11/20/2012 12:37 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Ignorance is no defence, at least in the UK.
In Canada, ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of the
facts is. In other words, if you're completely ignorant of the fact
that your computer is a botnet member, it could be a defence.
I woul
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 11/20/12 6:29 AM, Jason Ede wrote:
However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would help...
Ideally they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent through their
SMTP engine which would do some basic spam checks...
___
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:09:27 +
Ned Slider wrote:
> >> Personally I'd like to see some large corporates go after some
> >> infected home users in the courts for wilful damage.
> > I think they'd lose. Most home users could make a compelling case
> > that they were unaware of the infection an
On 20/11/12 15:17, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:10:57 +
Ned Slider wrote:
Personally I'd like to see some large corporates go after some
infected home users in the courts for wilful damage.
I think they'd lose. Most home users could make a compelling case
that they were
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 10:14 -0600, Robert A. Ober wrote:
> Which might block my legitimate server and some of my clients who are on
> Comcast Business. This has been brought up frequently but is a bad
> idea. Too often folks in larger organizations forget about us little guys.
>
So you think
On 11/20/12 6:29 AM, Jason Ede wrote:
However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would help... Ideally
they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent through their SMTP engine
which would do some basic spam checks...
Which might block
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:10:57 +
Ned Slider wrote:
> Personally I'd like to see some large corporates go after some
> infected home users in the courts for wilful damage.
I think they'd lose. Most home users could make a compelling case
that they were unaware of the infection and lacked the t
On 20/11/12 14:30, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:26:49 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Nah, prevent all connections except HTML and SMTP/POP3 to the ISPs
help desk and set of 'clean your act up' pages, so they can't ignore
the mess their computer is in.
And have escalating charge
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:26:49 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Nah, prevent all connections except HTML and SMTP/POP3 to the ISPs
> help desk and set of 'clean your act up' pages, so they can't ignore
> the mess their computer is in.
And have escalating charges for reinstating Internet access after
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 12:29 +, Jason Ede wrote:
> However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would
> help... Ideally they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent
> through their SMTP engine which would do some basic spam checks...
>
Nah, prevent all connections except HTM
Message-
>> From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:mar...@gregorie.org]
>> Sent: 20 November 2012 11:29
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: How to report a spam botnet
>>
>> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 01:26 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
>>
>>> No
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:29:00 +
Jason Ede wrote:
> However, ISP's blocking smtp ports for suspected spammers would
> help... Ideally they'd block all traffic on port 25 or 587 not sent
> through their SMTP engine which would do some basic spam checks...
They shouldn't (and typically don't) bl
.org]
> Sent: 20 November 2012 11:29
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to report a spam botnet
>
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 01:26 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
>
> > Notification help raise victims' security awareness, and motivate them
> > to fix vul
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 01:26 +, Chih-Cherng wrote:
> Notification help raise victims' security
> awareness, and motivate them to fix vulnerabilites within their computers.
>
I have my doubts about this. I have friends who help at retiree's
computer clubs and with disinfecting their friend's c
Michael Monnerie is.it-management.at> writes:
>
> [crosspost postfix-users and spamassassin-users]
>
> Am Sonntag, 18. November 2012, 14:08:08 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> > How should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit"
> > somewhere?
>
> Lets concentrate back on the subject, I
On 19/11/12 06:18, Michael Monnerie wrote:
[crosspost postfix-users and spamassassin-users]
Am Sonntag, 18. November 2012, 14:08:08 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
How should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit"
somewhere?
Lets concentrate back on the subject, I got this answer:
nor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We are probably a little bit off topic here but it is an interesting
subject.
My experience is that reporting a suspected bot is only effective if the
receiver is a larger university or similair institution.
If some RBL provider wants to accept my li
Michael Monnerie wrote:
>> > normally it makes no sense to report botnets
>>
>> And this is what makes me worry. Botnets are todays biggest source of
>> spam, and nobody has ever started to fight it really? There are tons of
>> tools for every small issue, but nothing to cope with the biggest shi
Am 19.11.2012 07:18, schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> [crosspost postfix-users and spamassassin-users]
>
> Am Sonntag, 18. November 2012, 14:08:08 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
>> How should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit"
>> somewhere?
>
> Lets concentrate back on the subject, I got t
On 11/19/2012 07:18 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
[crosspost postfix-users and spamassassin-users]
Am Sonntag, 18. November 2012, 14:08:08 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
How should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit"
somewhere?
Lets concentrate back on the subject, I got this answer:
[crosspost postfix-users and spamassassin-users]
Am Sonntag, 18. November 2012, 14:08:08 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> How should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit"
> somewhere?
Lets concentrate back on the subject, I got this answer:
> normally it makes no sense to report botnets
Am 18.11.2012 19:35, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 18.11.2012 14:08, schrieb Michael Monnerie:
>> We've got one users e-mail password hacked, and at the sime time a lot
>> of different IPs started to use that address. Here is the list. How
>> should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet
Am 18.11.2012 14:08, schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> We've got one users e-mail password hacked, and at the sime time a lot
> of different IPs started to use that address. Here is the list. How
> should we report those IPs, is there a "anti botnet unit" somewhere?
> What is the best way to fight it?
Hi Eloise,
At 02:07 02-06-2008, Eloise Carlton wrote:
We are working with the sender and providing recommendations to secure
and monitor account users (such as using captcha to prevent bots from
registering and setting rate limits on the user level). Currently there
is no historical data on abuse
We are working with the sender and providing recommendations to secure
and monitor account users (such as using captcha to prevent bots from
registering and setting rate limits on the user level). Currently there
is no historical data on abuse from this particular user, they have
flagged this accou
ram wrote:
Yes but the invite option may be abused. Like yahoo calendar invites are
abused to send spam
Mailing-Lists also can be abused (try to subscribe with a forged address).
the question is
- can the abuser put his text or url inside the message? If so, the site
should run the text a
Yes but the invite option may be abused. Like yahoo calendar invites are
abused to send spam
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 03:23 -0700, Eloise Carlton wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to report this. We've audited this
> sender; they are a social network, where users can communicate within a
> n
Thank you for taking the time to report this. We've audited this
sender; they are a social network, where users can communicate within a
network or users inviting friends to join a forum. The sender also
implemented Captcha as part of the registration. We are working to find
out more of the how the
On 02.05.08 19:11, ram wrote:
> I am getting spams on my spamtraps which are coming with
> HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
>
> Where do I report these
try searching the habeas website...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertis
On Sun, March 9, 2008 19:01, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
> to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED.
this is a ERROR IN YOUR DUMP SENDMAIL :=)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] nobody
FIX IT !
Benny Pede
So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
So I've asked multiple people multiple times how using sendmail
on an MX thats not a final delivery server how to use the virtusertable
to accept the mail, process against the virtusertable, and then
when the final delivery server i
On 3/10/2008 7:15 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
In any case, if someone can explain the mechanics
of having a sendmail MX that is not the final delivery server
do localized verification against something and then pass
it along to the final delivery server please let me know.
Its not that
At 13:38 10-03-2008, James E. Pratt wrote:
No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
usually is caused by many more issues than just no backup/secondary MX).
Yes.
At 14:20 10-03-2008, Bob Pro
Sandy S wrote:
OK, I admit I haven't been following this thread closely so I may have
missed something and maybe my suggestion won't fit your needs. However,
we're accomplishing something like what you describe above using
Mimedefang. The Mimedefang milter includes a function called
md_check
James E. Pratt wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
> >
> > Loss of mail.
>
> No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
> no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
> usual
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Hi,
Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
So I've asked multiple people multiple times how using sendmail
o
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to report 120,000 spams a day
>
> At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
> >What would have been the downside
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing
At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
Loss of mail.
mail would have remained in the mailqueue. Comcast, AOL, Yahoo,
Gmail, corporate servers, private servers, etc. would have retried to
send the mail to you later. When you
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
> MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
> So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
You are begining to understand why MX relays are recommended agains
>
> Seriously...
>
> How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
> for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
>
> Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
> change and that he isn't losing any email i
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing any email if you do not do a
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
There are "considerations" in doing this. Right now,
all my systems are set up running sendmail, and all with the
config of :
define(`confCOPY_ERRORS_TO',`Postmaster')
As such, true to its name, anytime there is an error, the
postmaster gets a c
SM wrote:
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
But it still remains, I'm looking to find what people think is
the best way on an MX host to do the rejecting at SMTP time.
I'm coming to this conversation kind of late, so I apologize if I've
missed something important earlier in the threa
> > >etc. I have in my sendmail virtusertable:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] nobody
> > The above is incorrect as there is still a processing overhead. I
> > suggest using:
> >
> > @example.com error:nouser User unknown
On 09.03.08 15:05, Tuc at T-B
> > Bango said that if his mom can't spell his name right, he doesn't
> > care if he gets her emails. :)
> >
>
> fair enough (he can also discard delivered mail anyway). but I've seen a
> lot of people subscribing to services with a mistyped address (their
> own) and then calling us to co
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
If you are proposing some kind of checksums or other types of 'message
identifying' techniques on the messages, those few mistyped addresses
could certainly make a difference for your site. What if bongo's mom
mistypes to bungo, realizes her mistake and resends it to
> The same argument applies to mail to valid addresses (bingo, bango, ...)
> as well. would you like to use all your mail as a spam corpus? after
> all, you get only 10 out of 12 messages to these addresses :)
>
Well, bingo DOES like to hear from his mom, SOMETIMES. ;)
I understand yo
>
> If you are proposing some kind of checksums or other types of 'message
> identifying' techniques on the messages, those few mistyped addresses
> could certainly make a difference for your site. What if bongo's mom
> mistypes to bungo, realizes her mistake and resends it to bongo a few
> min
Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. A
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > > I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
> > > to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user
> being
> > > fickle, its a
>
> Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
> > to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user
> > being
> > fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
> > EXISTED. About 1 e
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1 ever 3/4 of a second.
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> > I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> > doing
> > this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> > I'll probably just end up having to /dev/nul
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> doing
> this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> I'll probably just end up having to /dev/null them as I hav
>
> I see delivery attempts to invalid email address regularly. They get
> rejected at the SMTP level. Running such messages through
> SpamAssassin doesn't make sense. Your previous message mentioned
> that you wanted to report these "spam" messages and my reply was
> based upon that.
>
At 11:01 09-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1
>
> Automatic reporting - that's another thing entirely. As was pointed out in
> previous replys, the user
> community is not always accurate in reporting what is legit spam, and what
> is/was requested
> or "permitted". I tend to report manually, although I am writing some code
> to semi-auto
>
> At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
> >down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
> >every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
> >reduce the amount
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of disk usage. I
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
>> > > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
>> > > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
>> > > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
>> > > to be spams, and
9 -0500 (EST)
> To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [spamassassin] Re: How to report 120,000 spams a day
>
>>
>> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I have a feeling that I'm not expl
>
> On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
> > > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> > > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> > > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> > > to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
> > >
> >
On 08.03.08 18:28, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
> > Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> > those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> > them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> > to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
> >
> > I'm wonde
>
> Hi,
>
> Our mail server receives about 128K emails a day. Of
> those, 120K are absolutely known spam so I don't even run
> them through spamassassin. Of the 8K left, 6K are determined
> to be spams, and 2K are considered "good".
>
> I'm wondering if there is some way to help the
On Monday, April 12, 2004, 12:07:19 PM, Alton Danks wrote:
> I'm running into some FP's with the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP rule. We've also just
> added SURBL and I wouldn't be surprised to see more. I don't see a good way to
> report FP's on the spamcop.net site. Does anyone know how to report them so
>
89 matches
Mail list logo
