Thanks everyone for the facebook feedback.
Indeed this did happen and begin after Oct 26th. I believe our registration
began closer to Nov 1st.
It's relieving that this appears to be coincidence and is not a local virus,
keylogger, undetected VPS break in, etc.
My spamassassin is set up as
On 8-Nov-2009, at 03:39, Chip M. wrote:
TwoFers, did these start after mid-afternoon (1600 Eastern time)
of Oct 26? If so, this is PURE coincidence. :)
I checked four of my domains, including one which (by policy) has
NEVER received any authentic Facebook/Twitter stuff, and ALL
started receivin
On søn 08 nov 2009 11:44:05 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:39 +, Chip M. wrote:
Ugh. I just checked Twitter, and no SPF record. :(
No?
twitter might use another domain for signup ?, no :)
same as facebook.com does not use this domain for signup emails
face
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:39 +, Chip M. wrote:
>
> Ugh. I just checked Twitter, and no SPF record. :(
No?
What's this?
;; ANSWER SECTION:
twitter.com.600 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:128.121.145.168
ip4:128.121.146.128/27 mx ptr a:postmaster.twitter.com
mx:one.textdrive.com i
twofers wrote:
>What could be going on here? Any ideas? Is it coincidence?
TwoFers, did these start after mid-afternoon (1600 Eastern time)
of Oct 26? If so, this is PURE coincidence. :)
I checked four of my domains, including one which (by policy) has
NEVER received any authentic Facebook/Twit
Hi,
AFAIK this is just coincidence. I don't have any accounts on such
platforms but I also receive mails for passwort requests for Facebook,
MySpace .
Cheers
Ralph
twofers schrieb:
This may not be an exact Spamassassin type question, but something happened to
me recently concerning s
This may not be an exact Spamassassin type question, but something happened to
me recently concerning spam and I am hoping to get some feedback and thoughts
about it.
I have 3 websites on a VPS and with that several related email addresses.
help@, support@, etc; I also have a customer that I ho
distill wrote:
>
> My language might've been bad (again). I meant that out of 700
> processed messages, there is no occurance of the string "BAYES" in
> the headers. Does this indicate that the Bayes function is disabled
> in the configuration?
This does not necessarily mean that Bayes is disabl
ight've been bad (again). I meant that out of 700 processed
messages, there is no occurance of the string "BAYES" in the headers. Does
this indicate that the Bayes function is disabled in the configuration?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/msnbc.com---BREAK
On Saturday 16 August 2008 6:09 am, Greg Troxel wrote:
> distill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've been receiving these "msnbc.com - BREAKING NEWS" spams recently.
> > I've made sure that all of those spams (over 40 of them) are manually
> > trained to be spam. SpamAssassin does filter out those
hy it seems to be not learning anything)?
The SpamAssassin is running at my ISP's server and I don't have direct
access to it's specific configuration (but I can ask if I know what to ask).
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/msnbc.com---BREAKING-NEWS-spam-question
On Saturday 16 August 2008 5:27 am, distill wrote:
> I've been receiving these "msnbc.com - BREAKING NEWS" spams recently. I've
> made sure that all of those spams (over 40 of them) are manually trained to
> be spam. SpamAssassin does filter out those messages about 75% of the time.
> However, even
distill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been receiving these "msnbc.com - BREAKING NEWS" spams recently. I've
> made sure that all of those spams (over 40 of them) are manually trained to
> be spam. SpamAssassin does filter out those messages about 75% of the time.
> However, even after this ca
icrosoft Corporation - One Microsoft Way - Redmond, WA 98052
MSN PRIVACY STATEMENT
http://privacy.msn.com ( http://privacy.msn.com/ http://privacy.msn.com/> )
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/msnbc.com---BREAKING-NEWS-spam-question-tp19010363p19010363.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Gee, I thought these had been gone for weeks.
Write a rule for this:
Reply-To: "Your Mngr. linetmelisa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: Robert Swan
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: SPAM
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:44:50PM -0500, Robert Swan wrote:
> Q2. Is there a custom rule that triggers if someone sends from an ".ar"
> domain server or some other foreign country server, we don't get e-mail
> here from other counties ever.
You can write a rule to look at the from address, or use
tead of goodbyepeace my brother.
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:42 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM Question
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:38PM -0500, Robert Swan wrote:
> Ok so is there a rule
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:38PM -0500, Robert Swan wrote:
> Ok so is there a rule that can identify when the 2 do not match?
You can write a plugin to do it, but it'd be a horrible rule. For instance,
all mailing lists will get flagged.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"Linux is not beautiful.
Subject: RE: SPAM Question
> Q1. How does this e-mail end up in my mailbox, if the "To:" is someone
> else (I am not [EMAIL PROTECTED])
It's a relic from the days when there were about 8 computers on the
Internet, and you personally knew the administrator of each of them.
(I
> Q1. How does this e-mail end up in my mailbox, if the "To:" is someone
> else (I am not [EMAIL PROTECTED])
It's a relic from the days when there were about 8 computers on the
Internet, and you personally knew the administrator of each of them.
(I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.)
There's "en
Q1. How does this e-mail end up in my mailbox, if the "To:" is someone
else (I am not [EMAIL PROTECTED]), and how can I identify this with a
SPAM rule:
Q2. Is there a custom rule that triggers if someone sends from an ".ar"
domain server or some other foreign country server , we don't get e-mai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 21. Januar 2005 14:30 schrieb John Fleming:
> Since upgrading v2.64 to 3.0.2, I have a much higher false negative rate.
> I posted one a couple of days ago that involved a "trusted" issue. I just
> got a medication-spam this morning that
> Is a lot of reconfiguration usually necessary when upgrading 2.64 to 3.0?
I
> thought I understood that 3.0 incorporated several of the rulesets that
were
> previously separate, and besides, I haven't removed any old rulesets yet
> anyway.
Some is necessary. Shouldn't be a huge amount.
You nee
Since upgrading v2.64 to 3.0.2, I have a much higher false negative rate. I
posted one a couple of days ago that involved a "trusted" issue. I just got
a medication-spam this morning that ONLY triggered bayes_99, although it
mentioned sexual health, anxiety and others I would've thought would've
24 matches
Mail list logo
