My idea is to compare the domain part of the 'From' and 'Reply-To'
addresses, scoring for a close but not exact match (maybe
Damerau–Levenshtein between 1 and 3). The same logic could also be used
to compare the domain part of the 'From' to a list of domains that are
pron
ather than 2.
That sounds better, but I don't know how to employ it to make a rule for
SA. My idea is to compare the domain part of the 'From' and 'Reply-To'
addresses, scoring for a close but not exact match (maybe
Damerau–Levenshtein between 1 and 3). The same logic cou
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:32:01 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Michael's suggestion is interesting. There is a github project
allowing Levenshtein numbers to be calculated and us
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:32:01 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, John Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> >> Michael's suggestion is interesting. There is a github project
> >> allowing Levenshtein numbers to be calculated and used in SA, I
> >> wil
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 20:09, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-21 19:44, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Presumably interfacefm.com has been hacked, but not to the extent that
they can intercept incoming replies.
I stand corr
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 20:09, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-21 19:44, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Presumably interfacefm.com has been hacked, but not to the extent that
they can intercept incoming replies.
I stand corrected; but as they specify p=none, the mai
On 2021-02-21 23:00, Dominic Raferd wrote:
p=none is an instruction from the domain controller *not* to reject
emails from their domain even when they fail DMARC testing. So the end
result is that this mail should pass through DMARC testing.
remember dmarc can pass on spf pass only, even if dk
On 21/02/2021 20:09, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-21 19:44, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Presumably interfacefm.com has been hacked, but not to the extent that
they can intercept incoming replies.
I stand corrected; but as they specify p=none, the mail must still pass.
in what way should it pa
On 2021-02-21 19:44, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Presumably interfacefm.com has been hacked, but not to the extent that
they can intercept incoming replies.
I stand corrected; but as they specify p=none, the mail must still
pass.
in what way should it pass ?
dmarc tests spf, dkim, and opendmarc
On 21/02/2021 17:37, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:00:32 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 16:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-21 17:00, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:20 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 13:56, RW wrote:
From: "Karen Howard"
RW wrote:
> >>
> >>> >>> From: "Karen Howard"
> >>> >>> Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
> >>
> >>> Yes this mail passed DMARC
> >>
> >> How did it pass DMARC when it has the domain
On 21/02/2021 16:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-21 17:00, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:20 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 13:56, RW wrote:
>>> From: "Karen Howard"
>>> Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
Yes this mail passed DMARC
On 2021-02-21 17:00, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:20 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 21/02/2021 13:56, RW wrote:
>>> From: "Karen Howard"
>>> Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
Yes this mail passed DMARC
How did it pass DMARC when it has the d
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:20 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On 21/02/2021 13:56, RW wrote:
> >>> From: "Karen Howard"
> >>> Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
> Yes this mail passed DMARC
How did it pass DMARC when it has the domain being spoofed in the from
header?
On 21/02/2021 13:56, RW wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:28:51 +0100
Michael Storz wrote:
Am 2021-02-20 08:58, schrieb Dominic Raferd:
Is there a rule to catch cases where the domain of the Reply-To
header is a subtle variant on that in the To header. Take this
(real) example from a phishing
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:28:51 +0100
Michael Storz wrote:
> Am 2021-02-20 08:58, schrieb Dominic Raferd:
> > Is there a rule to catch cases where the domain of the Reply-To
> > header is a subtle variant on that in the To header. Take this
> > (real) example from a phishing
Am 2021-02-20 08:58, schrieb Dominic Raferd:
Is there a rule to catch cases where the domain of the Reply-To header
is a subtle variant on that in the To header. Take this (real) example
from a phishing email sent yesterday:
From: "Karen Howard"
Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
Is there a rule to catch cases where the domain of the Reply-To header
is a subtle variant on that in the To header. Take this (real) example
from a phishing email sent yesterday:
From: "Karen Howard"
Reply-To: "Karen Howard"
I realise that other elements of the addr
lookups on the domain in Reply-to address.
> >
> > How do we take advantage of this new capability?
>
> "perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval" (on a system with 3.4.3
> installed) provides the details.
>
> In short: there is a new config parameter rbl_hea
On 12 Dec 2019, at 12:44, John Schmerold wrote:
On the Postfix listserv, KAM informed the Postfix community that 3.4.3
has the ability to do RBL lookups on the domain in Reply-to address.
How do we take advantage of this new capability?
"perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval&q
On 12/12/19 18:44, John Schmerold wrote:
On the Postfix listserv, KAM informed the Postfix community that 3.4.3
has the ability to do RBL lookups on the domain in Reply-to address.
How do we take advantage of this new capability?
If I interpret the documentation correctly (still didn'
On the Postfix listserv, KAM informed the Postfix community that 3.4.3
has the ability to do RBL lookups on the domain in Reply-to address.
How do we take advantage of this new capability?
--
John Schmerold
Katy Computer Systems, Inc
https://katycomputer.com
St Louis
On 1 Jun 2018, at 5:12, @lbutlr wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 15:34, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
To further the point, one of the mailboxes I manage on this box has
95K+ messages. Apple Mail would choke to dead on this one.
Not at all. I have folders in mail.app with more than twice that
number of mes
In the example at hand, the article you linked to does not grant to Apache the
right to oppose to your right to oblivion.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 14:45, Anthony Cartmell wrote:
>> Ok we both subscribed to the list, but > the GDPR gives us the right to be
>> forgotte
> Ok we both subscribed to the list, but
> the GDPR gives us the right to be forgotten, for example. Now suppose
> you unsubscribe. You find out that your e-mails are archived on various
> sites other than SA. You send an e-mail to SA's or Apache's postmaster
> exerting your rights and demanding yo
I lost track of your reasoning. Let us start again. From the standpont of the
GDPR, there is you, me, and someone in between who is responsible for our
personal data. Infact, if you send to users@spamassassin.apache.org, I receive
a copy of it *because* apache.org used our addresses. Ok we both
On 30 May 2018, at 15:34, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
> To further the point, one of the mailboxes I manage on this box has 95K+
> messages. Apple Mail would choke to dead on this one.
Not at all. I have folders in mail.app with more than twice that number of
messages.
--
"Two years from now, spam w
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 17:39, Antony Stone
wrote:
PS: I notice you choose to take the opposite approach with your own
Reply-To header, deliberately making it more difficult for people to
reply to the list :)
On 31.05.18 17:00, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
I just use the official ios client
On 30 May 2018, at 08:25, Bill Cole
wrote:
> I can't speak to it as a MUA for mailing lists.
It is, as it always has been and by design, a very bad mail client for mailing
lists.
(I use Apple Mail. But I use procmail to fix some of its stupidity, which is
why this message goes to the list by
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 17:39, Antony Stone
wrote:
>PS: I notice you choose to take the opposite approach with your own Reply-To
>header, deliberately making it more difficult for people to reply to the list
>:)
I just use the official ios client, where such regulations are not
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 31 May 2018 at 17:35:11, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Beware of the GDPR. If a current or former subscriber wants their address
deleted, you are in hell. The mailing-list server can cleanup before
itself with a reply-to the list only, and
On Thursday 31 May 2018 at 17:35:11, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Beware of the GDPR. If a current or former subscriber wants their address
> deleted, you are in hell. The mailing-list server can cleanup before
> itself with a reply-to the list only, and obfuscating the addresses, and
&
Beware of the GDPR. If a current or former subscriber wants their address
deleted, you are in hell. The mailing-list server can cleanup before itself
with a reply-to the list only, and obfuscating the addresses, and deleting
people's own banners and signatures.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobil
On 2018-05-31 12:25, Antony Stone wrote:
> Anyone is free to set a Reply-To header in the emails they send. This
> will be preserved by the list server.
>
> I believe both Ian and Bill are doing this, yes.
Correct. But Reply-To doesn't mean "follow up with list post
> On 31 May 2018, at 16:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 31.05.2018 um 12:16 schrieb Palvelin Postmaster:
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *From: *Ian Zimmerman mailto:i...@very.loosely.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: List From and Reply-
On Thursday 31 May 2018 at 12:16:04, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Ian Zimmerman
> Are you and Bill Cole doing something different from other list members
> because your emails appear to have a Reply-To header?
Anyone is free to
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Ian Zimmerman
> Subject: Re: List From and Reply-To
> Date: 31 May 2018 at 8:24:11 EEST
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>
> On 2018-05-30 15:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
>
>&g
On 2018-05-30 15:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
> Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the
> poster’s message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
Because that is the only right way.
A list manager has no business modifying the contents of posted
me
On 05/30/2018 04:02 PM, RW wrote:
OK, but when you said "The failure seems to be a result of how DMARC
amalgamates the two with published policies" I thought you were claiming
some kind of anomalous behaviour.
Ah. Sorry for the confusion.
It's surely obvious that rewriting the envelope sende
On Wed, 30 May 2018 12:47:42 -0600
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 12:08 PM, RW wrote:
> > SPF passes on the rewritten envelope address, so it's not aligned
> > and it's just a matter of whether there's an aligned dkim pass.
>
> It depends on what the Forensic Report ("fo") option is set to
On 30 May 2018, at 17:19 (-0400), Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 13:54, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 14:51 (-0400), Grant Taylor wrote:
Since Qualcom transferred the Eudora IP to the Computer History
Museum and open sourced the source code, I expect that we will be
seeing mo
On 30 May 2018, at 14:30, Bill Cole wrote:
And if you can imagine this, both Thunderbird and MailMate choke on
large mailboxes *even more* than Mail.app does.
I haven't had MM "choke" on large mailboxes in recent years. I wish
Benny would just declare a 2.0 release to make it clear that MM t
On 30 May 2018, at 14:47 (-0400), Charles Sprickman wrote:
All email clients “generally suck”. Thunderbird is not even
actively developed anymore last I checked,
Check again. That's not been true for quite a while. I just dusted off
TBird for the first time in 2 years and was treated to an u
On 30 May 2018, at 13:54, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 14:51 (-0400), Grant Taylor wrote:
Since Qualcom transferred the Eudora IP to the Computer History
Museum and open sourced the source code, I expect that we will be
seeing movement there in. I think I've seen some references to
p
On 30 May 2018, at 14:51 (-0400), Grant Taylor wrote:
> Since Qualcom transferred the Eudora IP to the Computer History Museum and
> open sourced the source code, I expect that we will be seeing movement there
> in. I think I've seen some references to projects to resurrect the code base
> wit
On 05/30/2018 12:47 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
If I had a better option than some old command-line mess, I’d use it.
Every 3-4 years I go on a hunt for a new Mac mail client and I always
come up empty. I’ve tried MailMate, Thunderbird, Postbox and just keep
coming back to the (neglected) Mai
On 05/30/2018 12:08 PM, RW wrote:
SPF passes on the rewritten envelope address, so it's not aligned and
it's just a matter of whether there's an aligned dkim pass.
It depends on what the Forensic Report ("fo") option is set to in the
published DMARC policy. Domain owners / record publishers c
lMate, Thunderbird, Postbox and just keep coming back to the
(neglected) Mail.app. I’m all ears if there’s something out there that can
deal with 5 or 6 really large accounts well, AND does the right thing with
mailing lists, I’m all ears. I’ve not tried Outlook for Mac yet, maybe that’s
the t
On Wed, 30 May 2018 11:45:12 -0600
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 09:34 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > Now to see what sort of DMARC notifications (if any) I get for this
> > reply.
>
> I have received four DMARC auth-failure notifications (thus far) in
> response to my message to the SpamAs
On 05/30/2018 09:34 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Now to see what sort of DMARC notifications (if any) I get for this reply.
I have received four DMARC auth-failure notifications (thus far) in
response to my message to the SpamAssassin Users mailing list.
It looks like the reports are indicating t
On 05/30/2018 08:43 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
Note that changing the From header would break all DKIM signatures and
forcing a Reply-To would break many.
That's where validating & striping DKIM signatures as the message enters
the list comes into play. Preferably followed up with DKIM s
On 30 May 2018, at 10:25, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 10:00, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 16:48, Antony Stone
wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2018 at 15:33:13, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
On 30 May 2018, at 16:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
On 30.05.18 15:49, Palv
On 30 May 2018, at 8:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the
poster’s message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
1. Traditional standard practice. Doing otherwise in either case would
offend more people than sticking wit
ozilla and MailMate. For iOS not so much, sadly.
Any mail client that does not have an easy way to view messages in raw
RFC5322, to create messages that follow RFC3676, and to set Reply-To and
From headers arbitrarily is unfit for use in the modern world no matter
how many people use it because sw
> On 30 May 2018, at 16:48, Antony Stone
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 30 May 2018 at 15:33:13, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
>
>>> On 30 May 2018, at 16:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30.05.18 15:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
Hitting reply sends the response to poster dir
ist-Post: <mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>
There is no Reply-To header.
When I click on "Reply" my MUA automatically offers me
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Regards,
Antony.
--
Police have found a cartoonist dead in his house. They say that details are
currently ske
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:41:07 +0300
References: <257e510f-ab68-4e22-8a6b-552f59af3...@palvelin.fi>
<20180530122146.gb24...@fantomas.sk>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20180530122146.gb24...@fantomas.sk>
Message-Id:
Palvelin Postmaster schrieb am 30.05.2018 um 14:49:
Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the poster’s
message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
Hitting reply sends the response to poster directly and DMARC failures occur
when posting to list. Not very el
On 30.05.18 15:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the poster’s
message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
because it's the standard behaviour.
Hitting reply sends the response to poster directly
get a mail c
Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the poster’s
message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
Hitting reply sends the response to poster directly and DMARC failures occur
when posting to list. Not very elegant.
On 2018-02-21 (00:20 MST), Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
> Beware that companies use a legal note in their signature as advised by their
> lawyers, and many individuals do the same, to inform the reader about laws
> that apply regardless of where or when you are reading their note.
Mostly they lie
You are wrong.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 00:07, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 2018-02-20 (06:02 MST), Rupert Gallagher wrote: > > Do you have the legal
> right to do so? Absolutely. No one gets to inflict a contract on me.
> Especially not a entirely stupid nonsense thing that
Beware that companies use a legal note in their signature as advised by their
lawyers, and many individuals do the same, to inform the reader about laws that
apply regardless of where or when you are reading their note.
A mail from Europe is subject to data protection. It does not matter if you
On 2018-02-20 (06:02 MST), Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
> Do you have the legal right to do so?
Absolutely.
No one gets to inflict a contract on me. Especially not a entirely stupid
nonsense thing that like that piece of crap that has no legal weight whatsoever.
--
We are born naked, wet and hu
The matter is controversial. Lists have own defaults, who often abuse their
original aim of mere forwarding, especially when they redistribute from a
long-term archive. On the other hand, people have own default banners for all
outgoing correspondence, some with explicit reference to the applic
On 2/19/2018 7:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Kevin, can that be set to advisory rather than completely killed?
Agreed. I'll comment out the setting of the score to zero in
nonKAMrules.cf.
Do you have the legal right to do so?
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 00:23, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 2018-02-19 (09:57 MST), Paul Stead wrote: > ...@zeninternet.co.uk>
> I reject your terms. @zeninternet.co.uk>
On 18/02/2018 21:06, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header?
I've noticed a lot of spam with no URL and mutating From but the
reply-to domain is always aliyun dot com. I want to add a site-wide
blacklist for that.
If you are willing to write a litt
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Alex wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Whatever you do, just do not ask others to blacklist Alibaba
Are those getting hits on SPOOFED_FREEM_REPTO_CHN?
Perhaps just bump the score for that loca
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Whatever you do, just do not ask others to blacklist Alibaba
>
>
> Are those getting hits on SPOOFED_FREEM_REPTO_CHN?
>
> Perhaps just bump the score for that locally?
KAM's rules are stil
On 2018-02-19 (09:57 MST), Paul Stead wrote:
>
> This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message
> in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
>
> Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to
> handle customer enquiries an
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-19 22:35:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin
I have added a few domains over the past few months but my mail flow
isn't going to see many of the problem domains outside of the US like
those listed above.
https://www.google.dk/search?q=github+freemail
seems all i
On 02/19/2018 03:19 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Kenneth Porter wrote:
On 2/19/2018 12:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Are those getting hits on SPOOFED_FREEM_REPTO_CHN?
No, not seeing that one. After enough training I eventually see it
land in Bayes. The RBLs are starting to flag
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Kenneth Porter wrote:
On 2/19/2018 12:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Are those getting hits on SPOOFED_FREEM_REPTO_CHN?
No, not seeing that one. After enough training I eventually see it land in
Bayes. The RBLs are starting to flag it.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.7 required
,
FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT autolearn=no version=3.3.1
The subject and body are offering "image editing". The From is forged.
But the Reply-to is consistent.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Whatever you do, just do not ask others to blacklist Alibaba
Are those getting hits on SPOOFED_FREEM_REPTO_CHN?
Perhaps just bump the score for that locally?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec
Mobile
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:00, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 2/18/2018 5:09 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
>
>> On Monday 19 February 2018 at 01:55:45, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>> Question time! You receive spam with a reply-to your own address. What do
>>>
I have a BZ raised for reply-to blacklist checking:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7354
On 19/02/2018, 15:05, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
On 2/18/2018 3:06 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header?
>
On 2/18/2018 3:06 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header?
I've noticed a lot of spam with no URL and mutating From but the
reply-to domain is always aliyun dot com. I want to add a site-wide
blacklist for that.
To my knowledge it doesn't
On 19/02/2018 10:00, Kenneth Porter wrote:
I have no clue what Rupert is on about. I just want something like
blacklist_from that uses the reply-to header. I thought it was a
simple technical question about how the config file directives map
onto the actual headers. I'm not asking for
On 2/18/2018 5:09 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2018 at 01:55:45, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Question time! You receive spam with a reply-to your own address. What do
you do?
I take it that this is now a rather different question that the one you
originally asked in this thread
You need coffee...
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:09, Antony Stone
wrote:
> On Monday 19 February 2018 at 01:55:45, Rupert Gallagher wrote: > Question
> time! You receive spam with a reply-to your own address. What do > you do? I
> take it that this
Antony Stone skrev den 2018-02-19 02:09:
C: you ask for advice
Good idea; let's see what other replies you get.
i hate mondays :=)
On Monday 19 February 2018 at 01:55:45, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Question time! You receive spam with a reply-to your own address. What do
> you do?
I take it that this is now a rather different question that the one you
originally asked in this thread, where the reply-to address was c
Question time! You receive spam with a reply-to your own address. What do you
do?
A: you blacklist your own address
B: you ask around to do A for you
C: you ask for advice
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 22:39, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Sunday, February 18, 2018 4
Kenneth Porter skrev den 2018-02-18 22:39:
These emails are addressed to many of my web-page-only addresses that
I've never used to sign up for anything. They're clearly unsolicited.
blacklist_to *@spamtrap.example.org in replyto
force bayes learn on user in blacklist
maybe use blacklist_fro
--On Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:21 PM -0500 Rupert Gallagher
wrote:
It is not spam. You get it if you have an account with alibaba. Just
configure it.
These emails are addressed to many of my web-page-only addresses that I've
never used to sign up for anything. They're clearly unsolicited.
It is not spam. You get it if you have an account with alibaba. Just configure
it.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 21:06, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header? I've noticed a lot
> of spam with no URL and mutating F
On 2/18/2018 3:06 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header?
I've noticed a lot of spam with no URL and mutating From but the
reply-to domain is always aliyun dot com. I want to add a site-wide
blacklist for that.
http://msbl.org
(I'm not
Is there a blacklist for domains in the reply-to header?
I've noticed a lot of spam with no URL and mutating From but the reply-to
domain is always aliyun dot com. I want to add a site-wide blacklist for
that.
On 2016-08-05 15:13, Dianne Skoll wrote:
It'll be a cold day in Hell before MSFT acknowledges that header, I
suppose.
ironical ios devices is not better
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:44:16 +0200
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Somewhat current "evolution" can do this without
> installing/configuring anything.
Claws Mail also. It seems to respect the List-Post: header.
It'll be a cold day in Hell before MSFT acknowledges that header, I
suppose.
Regards,
On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 10:52 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2016-08-05 10:46, Martin wrote:
>
> > reply it replies to the poster not the list, this has always been a
> > The biggest reason is the way this mailing list is set up, when you
> > click
Which is a good thing.
[...]
> roundcube here
On 31.01.11 09:28, Adam Moffett wrote:
> Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
> I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting "reply".
> So I sometimes accidentally reply to the poster instead of the lis
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:28:27 -0500, Adam Moffett
wrote:
> People can believe I'm dumb for thinking that adding/modifying the
> reply-to: header is a simpler and cleaner solution, and I can believe
> people are dumb for thinking there should be multiple reply buttons in
>
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 15:22 +, Anthony Cartmell wrote:
> > Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
> > I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting
> > "reply". So I sometimes accidentally re
Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting
"reply". So I sometimes accidentally reply to the poster instead of the
list.
FWIW, Opera's excellent mail client sets
of just hitting
"reply". So I sometimes accidentally reply to the poster instead of the
list.
It's annoying to me, but it sounds like it's an issue like abortion
where everyone's made up their mind already and there isn't much point
arguing about it.
People
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:00:02 -0500, Adam Moffett
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
> >>> by the listserv?
> > On 1/28/2011 5:28 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:51:56 -0500, Matt Kettler
wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 5:28 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:00:02 -0500, Adam Moffett
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
>&g
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
