On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:10:04 -0900, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From your web page:
>
> "Bodytest" support - allows you to run filters like spamassassin and clamscan
> on the body of a mail message before replying to the final "." of the SMTP
> DATA command. (See the edinplace(1) ma
What I've do now is:
1) Spam over a certain score goes to /dev/null
2) Spam under a certain score, and over a certain score go to spamtrap
incase someone's looking for something.
3) Low scoring spam gets delivered the user with **SPAM** in the
subject which the users have a client side rules to
Timeout should not be a problem.
My SA seems to take 3 to 6 seconds to scan a message. SMTP timeout
should be 10 minutes, for any server that's compliant with rfc.
jay
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 24 December 2004 06:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I have set up my
On Friday 24 December 2004 06:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Recently, I have set up my account to reject with a 554 SMTP error
> code anything that spamassassin flags as spam, using the default
> threshold of 5.0,
From your web page:
"Bodytest" support - allows you to run filters like spamass
Tim B wrote:
Bouncing spam is IMHO just as big a problem as the spam itself.
Agreed.
It seems a certain appliance named after a fish likes to bounce spam by
default which has caused our server to receive over 30,000 false bounces
to legitimate email addresses in less an hour yesterday.
Consideri
1. Generate a bounce message to the envelope sender of the message, and
2. During the SMTP session, refuse to accept mail from the client,
by returning a 500-series SMTP error code.
Option 1 is almost always a terrible idea, unless perhaps the sender
has published an SPF record and the result o
I think people are missing an important point in this discussion about
bouncing spam. Really, "bouncing spam" can be used to mean two
different things:
1. Generate a bounce message to the envelope sender of the message, and
2. During the SMTP session, refuse to accept mail from the client,
b
Exactly. I can show him excerpets of emails (which I already did) and
it helps some. An article on the internet , a howto I don't know about
or an example of someone who did this and got blacklisted over the net
would be best. Maybe, like me, y'all have looked and not found anything
suitable
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 2:52:35 AM, Michele Solutions wrote:
>> If you're not already, consider using the RBL
>> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org at the MTA level. It's quite safe and
>> rejects a lot of spam before it's even seen by SpamAssassin, etc.
> I'd have to disagree with you Jeff.
> A lot of
>-Original Message-
>From: ChupaCabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>First he wanted that. I did it but actually kept em all. So then his
>partner didn't get an urgent email so it was turned back to
>the users to
>decide. I get a different kneejerk each week. What fun
>dealing with an
> If you're not already, consider using the RBL
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org at the MTA level. It's quite safe and
> rejects a lot of spam before it's even seen by SpamAssassin, etc.
I'd have to disagree with you Jeff.
A lot of the Irish and UK ISP netblocks end up in there as well, so you run
a higher
On Monday, December 20, 2004, 12:49:59 PM, ChupaCabra ChupaCabra wrote:
> My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
> over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
> it out." I tried explaining about forged headers and the myriad of
> othe
From: "ChupaCabra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> First he wanted that. I did it but actually kept em all. So then his
> partner didn't get an urgent email so it was turned back to the users to
> decide. I get a different kneejerk each week. What fun dealing with an
> 80 yo ex military man. This am
So true. If the boss wants to make an effort, then submit the spams to
spamcop -- or personally go to the upstream providers with individual
abuse complaints---
But attempting to bounce spam to likely bogus servers and users is futile,
with results about the same as him going outside and pissing
From: "Evan Platt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Evan Platt said:
> > I don't have a link for you, but tell your boss to imagine if someone
> > decided to dictionary attack every ISP they could find, using not only
> > dictionary words, but every combination of letters up to 9 letters, i.e.
> > a,
From: "Evan Platt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ChupaCabra said:
> > My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
> > over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
> > it out." I tried explaining about forged headers and the myriad of
> > other method
Let your boss know that this policy he suggests WILL get him blocked
at many sites permanently and spammers will find him such a convenient
bounce spam relay that he'll end up on every blacklist in the world.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "ChupaCabra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My boss is
Ring, John C wrote:
My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
it out."
[snip]
What you want to do, IMO, is run SpamAssassin during the SMTP session, such
as with http://duncanthrax.net/exis
ChupaCabra said:
> First he wanted that. I did it but actually kept em all. So then his
> partner didn't get an urgent email so it was turned back to the users to
> decide. I get a different kneejerk each week. What fun dealing with an
> 80 yo ex military man. This am it was "Lets spambomb eve
>My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
>over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
>it out."
And then when a spammer sends tons of e-mail to your site forged as, say,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], you stand a good chance IBM may end up blocking
shane mullins wrote:
Could you just discard it?
I was till a couple of vips lost important email. I was actually
keeping it all because I knew better.
Evan Platt wrote:
Evan Platt said:
I don't have a link for you, but tell your boss to imagine if someone
decided to dictionary attack every ISP they could find, using not only
dictionary words, but every combination of letters up to 9 letters, i.e.
a, b, c, etc up to zzz
Evan Platt said:
> I don't have a link for you, but tell your boss to imagine if someone
> decided to dictionary attack every ISP they could find, using not only
> dictionary words, but every combination of letters up to 9 letters, i.e.
> a, b, c, etc up to z for eve
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:49:59 -0600, ChupaCabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or does anyone think bouncing all spam is a good idea.
>
> Thanks ahead.
>
> --
> Michael H. Collins Admiral, Penguinista Navy
>
Bouncing spam will do two things. First, it'll generate a lot of
useless traffic, which
ChupaCabra said:
> My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
> over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
> it out." I tried explaining about forged headers and the myriad of
> other methods spammers use to look like they come from somepla
On Monday 20 December 2004 20:49, ChupaCabra wrote:
> I can see where he gets the idea in that I still see people on the
> internets saying bouncing it is good but in all my readings I have
> learned better. Or does anyone think bouncing all spam is a good idea.
Backscatter will get you blacklist
* ChupaCabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My boss is twisting off today because he got 350 messages marked [SPAM]
> over the weekend. His Reaction is to "Bounce em all, Let the isps sort
> it out." I tried explaining about forged headers and the myriad of
> other methods spammers use to look like th
27 matches
Mail list logo
