>
> > Hello all,
> > do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user
> > or
> > eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts
> > ?
>
> If you enable the AWL (or TxRep, if you are adventurous) Plugin, it
> provide
On 2024-04-12 at 02:14:59 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:14:59 +0200)
Pierluigi Frullani
is rumored to have said:
Hello all,
do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user
or
eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts
?
If you enable the AWL
> do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user or
> eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts ?
Yes create your own dns blacklist
> A sort of auto_learn but only for addresses ( to or from ) ?
No such thing as only for... Yo
Hello all,
do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user or
eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts ?
A sort of auto_learn but only for addresses ( to or from ) ?
I'll trying to explain: I maintain a couple of mail servers that have a
very
Philip Prindeville via users skrev den 2024-03-28 18:55:
My config also has:
trusted_networks 192.168.6.0/24
trusted_networks 192.168.8.0/24
trusted_networks 127.0.0.1/32
So I don't think that's the problem.
rfc 1918 is imho hardcoded into spamassassin
if its this, make a bugzilla about it,
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
>>> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever se
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
>>> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever se
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of evaluation? Mail::SpamAssassin::C
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
>> I have something that looks like:
>>
>> whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
>>
>> blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
>>
>> And I only ever seem to see the 2nd ru
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of evalu
Hi.
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of evaluation? Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf doesn't say that I
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-18 12:11:04 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Mmm. So how would you, as sender or sender's mail provider, troubleshoot a
message rejected with "550 Too spammy"? I have seen several rejections that
were equally clear and to the point, without divu
On 2022-08-23 14:31:55 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Fair enough: I did say that some of this was off the top pf my head at
> the end of a longish day.
>
> Would doing the lookup trick on the URL in the Message-ID header be any
> more reliable?
DNS Lookup checking is valid only for IP -> FQDN -
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 12:11 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2022-08-18 19:40:33 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > - if the reverse lookup fails, or the domain it retrieved does not
> > match the one in the From address, send a bare 550 REJECT because
> > the failed
> > reverse lookup implies the
On 2022-08-18 19:40:33 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> - extract the domain name from the incoming mail's From header and use
> it to find the domain IP. Use that IP to do a reverse domain lookup.
>
> - if the reverse lookup fails, or the domain it retrieved does not match
> the one in the Fr
On 2022-08-18 12:11:04 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Mmm. So how would you, as sender or sender's mail provider, troubleshoot a
> message rejected with "550 Too spammy"? I have seen several rejections that
> were equally clear and to the point, without divulging any particular detail
> about what,
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 12:11 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Mmm. So how would you, as sender or sender's mail provider,
> troubleshoot a message rejected with "550 Too spammy"? I have seen
> several rejections that were equally clear and to the point, without
> divulging any particular detail abou
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-16 12:05:43 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
And, quite reasonably, most rejections for spam include very little or no
detail, so aside from DNSBL-based rejections the sending platform has
essentially zero information beyond "the receiving system doesn't like us".
Whic
On 2022-08-16 12:05:43 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2022-08-15 10:39:05 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > > Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > Rejecting mail (instead of accepting it and dropping it) is useful
> > > > in case of false positives.
> > >
> > > I'm a bit torn on t
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-15 10:39:05 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Rejecting mail (instead of accepting it and dropping it) is useful
in case of false positives.
I'm a bit torn on this.
On the one hand, yes, the sender now knows for sure their message didn't get
t
On 2022-08-15 11:33:53 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >> . . .
> >> > 2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
> >> > the recipient to decide wh
On 2022-08-15 10:39:05 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Rejecting mail (instead of accepting it and dropping it) is useful
> > in case of false positives.
>
> I'm a bit torn on this.
>
> On the one hand, yes, the sender now knows for sure their message didn't get
> through*.
On 16/08/2022 01:33, Greg Troxel wrote:
If you accept mail and then send it to /dev/null, then the recipient is
unaware that it was sent, and the sender is unaware that it wasn't
received,
Exactly what happens to high scored spam, if its high is very obvious
trash and the recipient wont want
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
>> On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> . . .
>> > 2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
>> > the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
>>
>> Agreed in p
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
. . .
2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
Agreed in part. I see returning
Bill Cole wrote:
Not exactly. There are 2 distinct domain lists internal to SA that exist
to reduce false positives.
1. The URIDNSBL 'skip' list of domains which are ignored in body URIs.
These are known to not *per se* have any correlation to the ham/spam
classification decision.
IIRC the
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: On 14/08/2022
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
suitable
On 14/08/2022 22:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
spoofed, the end result of this will be y
On 14/08/2022 23:15, David Bürgin wrote:
To clarify: Backscatter is caused by 'rejecting' mail with a bounce
message, after first accepting it.
This is what was being suggested by some, I think everyone here knows
what backscatter means, and what it is.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email,
On 14/08/2022 22:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: On 14/08/2022
02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
suitable
WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
spoofed, the
On 8/14/2022 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, joe a wrote:
Why waste your own system resources to help a scoundrel? Drop them
and be done.
I personally perfer to TCP tarpit repeat offenders.
+1
-- Jared Hall
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, joe a wrote:
Why waste your own system resources to help a scoundrel? Drop them and be
done.
I personally perfer to TCP tarpit repeat offenders.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org pgpk -a
> WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> spoofed, the end result of this will be your mail server getting the
> poor reputation as source of backscatter and going into blacklists :)
If you reject, you should reject on their SMTP connection. If you
return a DSN la
Martin Gregorie:
> On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > On 14/08/2022 02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >
> > > 3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
> > > suitable
> >
> > WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> > spoofed
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > 3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
> > suitable
>
> WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> spoofed, the end result of this will be
On 2022-08-13 19:09:26 -0400, joe a wrote:
> On 8/13/2022 4:52 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Well, if you don't reject the mail with the reason that the address
> > is invalid, the spammer could deduce that the address is valid
> > (at least potentially valid). By not rejecting spam, the spammer
>
On 14/08/2022 04:23, Bill Cole wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that... There are a handful of rules that
sidestep specific false positive cases because the hit being evaded
isn't meaningful in specific cases. None of those are intended to
'whitelist' any domain, they exist to avoid incorrect
On 14/08/2022 02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a suitable
WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
spoofed, the end result of this will be your mail server getting the
poor reputation as source of backscatte
I am far from an anti SPAM expert, but:
On 8/13/2022 4:52 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
. . .
2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
the recipient to decide whether to retu
On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
> On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> . . .
> > 2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
> > the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
>
> Agreed in part. I see returning SPAM to sende
don't
live in the USA, let alone Florida, so probably a spammer infected their
mailing list or stole their list address). As usual, I added that
address to my personal blacklist: problem solved.
However, I was feeling helpful that day, so also emailed their 'abuse'
address to let them
On 2022-08-12 at 23:43:48 UTC-0400 (Sat, 13 Aug 2022 13:43:48 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
Why are you not blocking with blacklists at the border, ie: MTA.
Given its 0 resources for your MTA, with anti spam checking on SA
often using significant resources (depending on traffic/
I'll be sure to look this over well to see what I can use or adapt, thanks.
On 8/13/2022 11:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.08.22 um 16:21 schrieb joe a:
Ah, thanks for describing that. I am somewhat more brain fogged than
usual this morning, so am uncertain any of those would work in thi
On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
. . .
2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
Agreed in part. I see returning SPAM to sender as an exercise in
futility or perhaps further ena
On Sat, 2022-08-13 at 17:46 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and the main downside is that you can't REJECT clear spam and if "This
> puts spam into a holding area, where A cron job deletes it after a
> week" nobody knows in case of false positives
>
1) OF COURSE I have a daily cron job that reports a
On Sat, 2022-08-13 at 10:21 -0400, joe a wrote:
> This is a low volume system consisting of postfix, SA, clamav and
> fetchmail.
>
> The mailserver (postfix) is not exposed to the internet, mail traffic
> is sent to it by "fetchmail", which itself goes out to several
> providers where mail accoun
And, of course, I must edit my last reply:
On 8/13/2022 10:21 AM, joe a wrote:
My first thought was, the postfix stuff would work, because . . .
My first thought was, the postfix stuff would NOT work, because . . .
Ah, thanks for describing that. I am somewhat more brain fogged than
usual this morning, so am uncertain any of those would work in this
configuration. But I certainly need to look deeper. At least into my
coffee mug.
This is a low volume system consisting of postfix, SA, clamav and
fetchma
On 13.08.22 15:52, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
I think what Noel is referring to is Postfix configuration like this
for example:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rhsbl_reverse_client
d
On 13.08.22 13:43, Noel Butler wrote:
Why are you not blocking with blacklists at the border, ie: MTA.
one can block at MTA level, but blocklists are usable on multiple headers,
not just on the incoing IP address.
On 13/08/2022 09:55, joe a wrote:
I need to refresh my brain on using blackli
I think what Noel is referring to is Postfix configuration like this for
example:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination, reject_rbl_client
zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org,
reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamh
On 8/12/2022 11:43 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Why are you not blocking with blacklists at the border, ie: MTA.
I'm not familiar with how to do that or if it can be done. Since SA
offers this functionality, so did not even consider that. I'll look into it.
Given its 0 resources for your MTA, wit
Why are you not blocking with blacklists at the border, ie: MTA.
Given its 0 resources for your MTA, with anti spam checking on SA often
using significant resources (depending on traffic/number of tests/rules
etc), its best to stop it getting to SA in the first place.
SA also has this by-defa
I need to refresh my brain on using blacklists with SA, before looking
more deeply into why this got through.
Today a email slipped through with a very low score that was clearly
phishy. A url in question, posing as another, hits no less that 6
blacklists. I was going to look at clamav that
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:27:23 +0100
Benoît Panizzon wrote:
> Hi Philipp
>
> We see them a lot lately. This are all forms which pass on some sort
> of user content back to the alleged subscriber during the subscription
> process.
>
> So if you can pass a 'firstname' (or any other data) during
> su
way.
As all kind of different form submission tools are abused, I fear there
is not much you can do except report to the webmaster of the affected
form and also report the email to your choice of DNS Blacklist or URI
blacklist to get either the sender IP or the confirmation URL
blacklisted.
Philipp are these spam using things like Google forms for spam? If so, take a
look at KAM.cf on mcgrail.com, we've added a number of rules to combat those
recently.
on my freemail i got google formular SPAM.
AM.cf on mcgrail.com
i will have a look - thanks
On 11/21/20 6:08 AM, Andrew Coli
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 22:23, Levente Birta wrote:
>
> I'd like to try the KAM channel. A quick install how-to would be nice too
I would like to test the KAM channel tool.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:46 PM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> BTW, anyone willing to test the KAM channel? We've got it in production
> use for a while now.
+1
thanks,
-f
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:28:52 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Philipp Ewald wrote:
>
> > On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought
> > maybe there will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.
>
> ...
>
> > Thanks f
uction use for a while now.
I'd like to try the KAM channel. A quick install how-to would be nice too
thanks
Levi
Regards,
KAM
On 11/20/2020 12:38 PM, Philipp Ewald wrote:
Hi everyone,
lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.
Does anyone know a blacklist for this
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Philipp are these spam using things like Google forms for spam? If so, take a
look at KAM.cf on mcgrail.com, we've added a number of rules to combat those
recently.
There are also Google Docs rules in the base ruleset that should catch
that.
Bas
20/2020 12:38 PM, Philipp Ewald wrote:
Hi everyone,
lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.
Does anyone know a blacklist for this?
Kind regards
Philipp
--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Pro
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Philipp Ewald wrote:
On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought maybe there
will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.
...
Thanks for contact BLABLALBA
Your Text to us:
SPAM
This looks like abuse of a web-based feedback form at alnatura.de; they
Philipp Ewald skrev den 2020-11-20 19:08:
nope i will check spamassassin for more "low" volume services
URIBL provides public lookups over DNS for low volume usage. If you
spam check a large amount of email, or you use a shared DNS platform
for resolution, you may receive a response saying
nope i will check spamassassin for more "low" volume services
URIBL provides public lookups over DNS for low volume usage. If you spam check
a large amount of email, or you use a shared DNS platform for resolution, you
may receive a response saying the query was refused.
we have a higher
Philipp Ewald skrev den 2020-11-20 18:52:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.526
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.526 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
aut
On 11/20/20 6:41 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
Url blacklists? Maybe paste some headers here?
Not real URL Blacklist.
On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought maybe there
will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.901
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam
Url blacklists? Maybe paste some headers here?
-Original Message-
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: contact from blacklist
Hi everyone,
lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.
Does anyone know a blacklist for this?
Kind regards
Philipp
--
Philipp
Hi everyone,
lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.
Does anyone know a blacklist for this?
Kind regards
Philipp
--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator
DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de
AG Köln HRB
On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 16:21:24 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:45 +0200
> Benoit Panizzon wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, but now I need to tell SpamAssassin to only query IPv4
> > addresses on the first zone and only query IPv6 addresses on the
> > ip6 one.
> >
> > I was not able to find a way
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:45 +0200
Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> Well, but now I need to tell SpamAssassin to only query IPv4 addresses
> on the first zone and only query IPv6 addresses on the ip6 one.
>
> I was not able to find a way to achieve this. Did I overlook
> something?
>
It can almost be
Hi Bill
> Easy fix: do not use wildcards in IPv4 listings.
I agree, for the purpose of a 'listed yes/no' blacklist this is the
way to go.
> Both rbldnsd and BIND have other mechanisms for compactly generating
> records that cover an IPv4 /24 network without also generating
On 7 Aug 2020, at 5:56, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
Hi Gang
I am part of the SWINOG Anti-Spam Blacklists team which are used by a
handfull of swiss ISP.
Very early, we also started adding IPv6 addresses to the blacklist but
soon noticed that there is a potential problem with IPv6 and wildcard
whole /24 in the Blacklist:
*.0.0.2.dnsbl.example.org 300 in TXT "Bunch of abusers, /24 listed"
Isnt the issue the way you load up your rbldnsd zone?
:127.0.0.2:https://www.wellknownblocklist.org/query/ip/$
1.0.20.0/24
1.0.128.0/17
!1.0.180.136
You should not use asteriks b
Benoit Panizzon skrev den 2020-08-07 11:56:
Well, but now I need to tell SpamAssassin to only query IPv4 addresses
on the first zone and only query IPv6 addresses on the ip6 one.
single zone with recults code for ipv4 and ipv6 ranges, the text record
need to be overlaping in ipv4 and ipv6, bu
iss ISP.
>
> Very early, we also started adding IPv6 addresses to the blacklist but
> soon noticed that there is a potential problem with IPv6 and wildcard
> entries.
>
> Let's assume 2.0.0.0/24 is full of abusers and you decide to throw their
> whole /24 in the Blacklis
Hi Gang
I am part of the SWINOG Anti-Spam Blacklists team which are used by a
handfull of swiss ISP.
Very early, we also started adding IPv6 addresses to the blacklist but
soon noticed that there is a potential problem with IPv6 and wildcard
entries.
Let's assume 2.0.0.0/24 is full of ab
what the plugin does and I stand by the name. People
should stop using the language.
As you cannot fail to be aware if you read even a fraction of the list
messages on this topic, there is absolutely no consensus that
blacklist/whitelist etc. are racially charged terms. Some perceive them
a
scribes exactly what the plugin does and
I
stand by the name. People should stop using the language.
As you cannot fail to be aware if you read even a fraction of the list
messages on this topic, there is absolutely no consensus that
blacklist/whitelist etc. are racially charged terms. Some
* Thom van der Boon:
> I do not like the proposed change, because of greylisting. What is
> between a welcomelist and a blocklist?
Literally? White spaces. Also, to the imaginary racially offended crew
out there: I'll have you know that I will keep ordering black coffee,
even in public and in ear
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020, Thom van der Boon wrote:
I do not like the proposed change, because of greylisting. What is between a
welcomelist and a blocklist?
Delaylist, perhaps (based on the greylist milter), though that does not
connote "rating is ambiguous". Suspectlist, perhaps? I'm finding no
On 25 Jul 2020, at 13:25, Thom van der Boon wrote:
> Dear everybody,
>
> Could we please "cut the crap" and stop with all the polictics.
Yes, but starting a new thread that is attracting the same BS again is not
going to help.
I already have a half-dozen threads muted and a few persistent pos
For instance every mail from a .icu domain would be amber listed with me
Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
Thom van der Boon
E-Mail: t...@vdb.nl
Van: "Eric Broch"
Aan: "SA Mailing list"
Verzonden: Zaterdag 25 juli 2020 14:03:43
Onderwerp: Re: Constructive solut
On 7/24/2020 6:00 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 25/07/2020 04:03, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I'd say too many people without merit and knowledge of the project
spouting off building on misinformation and rants more fitting for a
racist channel on 4chan would be my analysis of what started the
disc
Noel Butler writes:
[weird rant deleted]
> There are 192 _other_ countries in the world, the USA is united states
There are 194 other countries in the world.
--
micah
On 25/07/2020 04:03, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I'd say too many people without merit and knowledge of the project
> spouting off building on misinformation and rants more fitting for a
> racist channel on 4chan would be my analysis of what started the discussion.
here we go again, attacking peopl
On 7/24/2020 3:59 AM, Marc Roos wrote:
> >> you will be able to change 1 byte in the code and get the previous
> rule names.
>
> This sounds to me like putting somewhere the character 0 or 1, which
> means that blacklist and whitelist words are still defined somewhere in
>> you will be able to change 1 byte in the code and get the previous
rule names.
This sounds to me like putting somewhere the character 0 or 1, which
means that blacklist and whitelist words are still defined somewhere in
the code. Is that not what started the discussion?
But none th
That reminds me:
Eric, BLM and all the good Marxists and community organizers, and those who
think the people that talk about “the decline of western civilization” hold
some very questionable values about folks that don’t look like them, I’d like
to thank you on behalf of all these organization
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> On Jul 23, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>
> Political correctness, BLM and Antifa (LGBTQ) as well as feminism (and many
> other agendas) are being used as battering rams to destroy western culture
> and usher in Marxist global governance. The real agenda isn't "ge
BLM thanks Eric Broch for his continued support.
If you pass on your address, I'll be sure to tell them to send you a
postcard in thanks for your donation.
Eric Broch writes:
> Political correctness, BLM and Antifa (LGBTQ) as well as feminism (and
> many other agendas) are being used as batt
Political correctness, BLM and Antifa (LGBTQ) as well as feminism (and
many other agendas) are being used as battering rams to destroy western
culture and usher in Marxist global governance. The real agenda isn't
"getting along" it's quite the opposite.
On 7/23/2020 4:41 PM, Antony Stone wrote
On Thursday 23 July 2020 at 22:44:51, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> The Apache foundation has some cash laying around. Make whatever wording
> changes you like, but **at the same time**, donate a meaningful amount
> of money to a cause like the ACLU or the defense/medical funds for the
> protestors.
r Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:45 PM Michael Orlitzky
wrote:
> I'd like to offer a constructive solution to the blacklist/whitelist
> argument to the Apache foundation and Kevin in particular.
>
I'd like to offer a constructive solution to the blacklist/whitelist
argument to the Apache foundation and Kevin in particular.
There is opposition to this change on at least two fronts:
* Philosophical: the change does nothing to address the underlying
political problems. Black peopl
>> You go shut your piehole
Ehhh, who exactly? Having a nice evening with a vodka bottle? ;)
You go shut your piehole
Woke white guys who know best about racism against blacks and who use a
domain name that insults native Americans have spoken!!!
Black people and people of color need to go sit down and shut up while
woke white guys who know best for them do what is best for the
On 20/07/20 19:31, John Hardin wrote:
Apologies for not clarifying that detail; I was aware of it. I did
hedge by saying "(potentially) subject to renaming".
No apologies necessary, it wasn't directed to you :)
I'm just trying to raise awareness that, while changing things is
possible, it
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent
1 - 100 of 1271 matches
Mail list logo
