On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Woick schrieb:
[Spamcop]
I understand the two step reporting process too, and I too find it
annoying and timeconsuming to ack my (manually reviewed) 50 spams per
day to them, so I ceased to do it. T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Woick schrieb:
> [Spamcop]
> I understand the two step reporting process too, and I too find it
> annoying and timeconsuming to ack my (manually reviewed) 50 spams per
> day to them, so I ceased to do it. There exist scripts for ack'ing
> automa
Alex Woick writes:
> Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb am 25.10.2007 09:13:
>
> > The problem with SpamCop is: the two step reporting process makes things
> > a bear to do. I understand the logic behind it, but once or twice I've
> > taken a couple hundred spam emails and spamassassin -r'd it.
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb am 25.10.2007 09:13:
The problem with SpamCop is: the two step reporting process makes things
a bear to do. I understand the logic behind it, but once or twice I've
taken a couple hundred spam emails and spamassassin -r'd it...annoying
as hell.
I understand
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 03:13 -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, ram wrote:
>
> > Sorry I meant "like spamcop" .. I think I must proof-read my own mail
> > now before Ctrl-Enter :-)
>
> The problem with SpamCop is: the two step reporting process makes things a
> bear to
On 10/25/2007 9:13 AM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, ram wrote:
Sorry I meant "like spamcop" .. I think I must proof-read my own mail
now before Ctrl-Enter :-)
The problem with SpamCop is: the two step reporting process makes things
a bear to do. I understand the log
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, ram wrote:
Sorry I meant "like spamcop" .. I think I must proof-read my own mail
now before Ctrl-Enter :-)
The problem with SpamCop is: the two step reporting process makes things a
bear to do. I understand the logic behind it, but once or twice I've
taken a couple hund
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Alex Woick wrote:
Matthias Leisi schrieb am 17.10.2007 09:46:
Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)
| trusted_networks 204.9.177.18
you are telling SpamAssassin that this relay is not operated by a
spammer and that it should apply all black-/whitelist
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:46 +0530, ram wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:38 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> > > dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
> > >
> > > I've gotten at l
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:38 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> > dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
> >
> > I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as
> > "low tr
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> >> On my end, I have degrees of control (false MXes, Blacklists,
> >> whitelists, greylists, sender callbacks, etc). I have no such control
> >> over the LJ MX'es.
> >
> > Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or
Matthias Leisi schrieb am 17.10.2007 09:46:
Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)
| trusted_networks 204.9.177.18
you are telling SpamAssassin that this relay is not operated by a
spammer and that it should apply all black-/whitelist rules etc. to the
IP address one more hop
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
Livejournal's purely a mail forwarding service (i.e. there's no way to
POP/IMAP that account)
As far as I know, there are mails originating from LJ itself (eg
notific
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> Livejournal's purely a mail forwarding service (i.e. there's no way to
> POP/IMAP that account)
As far as I know, there are mails originating from LJ itself (eg
notifications etc)?
> and if they can't effect pr
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
email size was about one meg).
OK, I now could have a look at them (well, a sample of them, not each of
the > 200 individually).
All samples in that set have been forwarded through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
> email size was about one meg).
OK, I now could have a look at them (well, a sample of them, not each of
the > 200 individually).
All sampl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> My point was more along the lines of the fact that there's no method
> (other than manual notification) of doing "Active Correction". DNSWL is
> a cool idea, but could we also come up with some sort of "reportin
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:48:49AM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:16:49PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:16:49PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as "low
trust" (which still merits -1.0).
Umm, did yo
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
email size was about one meg).
It would have been from this address.
-Dan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
dnswl.org is either
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
> dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
>
> I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as
> "low trust" (which still merits -1.0).
All different IP addresses or some specifi
21 matches
Mail list logo
