Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Mr. "List Mail User", your efforts in this respect are ridiculous, now your are resurrecting long dead bodies. I can't believe that you read this document and still believe it could have any relevance to this. Wow. 1. this is what rfc-editor.org says about 954: RFC0954 NICNAME/WHOIS K. Harrens

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

>... >From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100: >> >>> After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed, >>> still broken: >>> >>> >> >> And *where exactly* does

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100: After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed, still broken: And *where exactly* does this RFC say that the whois inpu

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:31:16PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100: > > > After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed, > > still broken: > > > > > > And *where exact

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

List Mail User wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 06:53:36 -0700 (PDT): > What about RFC1032, page 5 RFC 1032 is not authoritative in any way. It never was a standard, it doesn't define anything about the whois protocol. If you think so it's wishful thinking. > This RFC is not obsolete, and make quite

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On Friday 26 May 2006 15:53, List Mail User took the opportunity to write: > > Kai, > > There doesn't seem to be any language barrier, so either you refuse > to read and follow the RFC trail yourself, or you require "spoon-feeding". > > What about RFC1032, page 5 > " > VERIFICATIO

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

>... >Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100: > >> After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed, >> still broken: >> >> > >And *where exactly* does this RFC say that the whois input and output must >beha

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

>List Mail User wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 23:02:21 -0700 (PDT): > >> DeNIC does not follow this protocol; > >1. there's nothing which backs your claim, *nothing*. >2. "example" is an example and nothing else. You should know that. There are >also special >words in RFCs which clearly define manda

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100: > After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed, > still broken: > > And *where exactly* does this RFC say that the whois input and output must behave in a differ

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:01:59 +0100: > If you think a listing is incorrect either contact RFCi, or raise it > the RFCi mailing list. > > Complaining about it does nothing. I don't complain. If you go back to my original posting you see that I issued a warning

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

List Mail User wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 23:02:21 -0700 (PDT): > DeNIC does not follow this protocol; 1. there's nothing which backs your claim, *nothing*. 2. "example" is an example and nothing else. You should know that. There are also special words in RFCs which clearly define mandatory thi

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

>... >On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write: >> Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100: >> > .de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken: >> >> No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken. >> >> >> >> And t

RE: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote: > (RFC) > open TCP (SYN) --> >< (SYN+ACK) - > send query "Smith" > > get answer < "Info about Smith" - >< "More info a

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On 25 May 2006, at 21:54, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write: Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100: .de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken: No, *your* whois client is o

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On 25 May 2006, at 20:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100: .de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken: No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken. Agreed, it works in a later version. And this is not th

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write: > Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100: > > .de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken: > > No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken. > > > > And this is not the

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

> > You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org lists, they list whole TLDs just > because they don't like something about them. These lists go by "personal > taste" than any other. > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=something.de http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-whois.php

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Magnus Holmgren wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:01:19 +0200: > "[...], however 'entire TLD'-based domains return a different result code in > the A record (127.0.0.7 versus 127.0.0.5) so as to allow sites to > differentiate between them." That is not of interest at all. The problem is they list TL

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100: > .de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken: No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken. > whois something.de > [Querying whois.denic.de] > [whois.denic.de] > % Copyright (c)2004 by DENIC > % Versi

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On 25 May 2006, at 16:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700: Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even though I like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, these two create too many false positives. Yo

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even though I like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, these two create too many false positives. You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org lists, they list whole TLDs just because they don't like somet

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On Thursday 25 May 2006 17:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write: > Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700: > > Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even > > though I like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, > > these two cre

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700: > Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even though I > like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, these two > create too many false positives. You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org list

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

that info was indeed good! On Wed, 24 May 2006, Mike Jackson wrote: Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get trigerred for these tests 0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST Because it's listed on both of

RE: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Some mail server admins even block mail coming from there by default. -Sietse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 24-May-06 12:01 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE Event though hotmai

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get trigerred for these tests 0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST Because it's listed on both of those lists at rfc-ignorant.org: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/looku

RE: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

fault. -Sietse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 24-May-06 12:01 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster address, why do mails

Re: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

On May 24, 2006, at 3:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get trigerred for these tests 0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST I believe the requirement is not just that the

false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE

Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get trigerred for these tests 0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST Regards Padma ERNET Helpdesk