On 12/11/2021 at 3:33 PM Philip Prindeville wrote:
What... you mean "do no evil" is just lip-service? I'm so... so...
disillusioned!
On 26.11.21 11:07, Peter wrote:
They abandaoned the motto in 2018.
I often think they only skipped the "Don't" part of their "Don't be evil"
motto.
--
Matus
They abandaoned the motto in 2018.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/11/2021 at 3:33 PM Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>What... you mean "do no evil" is just lip-service? I'm so... so...
>disillusioned!
>
>-Philip
On 11/12/21 00:43, Loren Wilton wrote:
I have to admit I'd never paid much attention to the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_*
scores on spam before.
Looking at spam for last month, I don't have a single RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED.
But I do have 12 pretty blatent spams that hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI.
It makes me wonder just ho
> On Nov 9, 2021, at 6:49 AM, Jared Hall wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2021 11:36 PM, Peter wrote:
>> It seems that people aren't taking google as seriously any more.
> First came Freemail. Then came SpamAssassin. I DO think that people take
> Google seriously. There are just so many ways to deal wit
Arne Jensen writes:
> Den 11-11-2021 kl. 20:21 skrev Greg Troxel:
>> It's a really interesting question what DNSWL_MED ought to be for score.
>> Given what MED is supposed to be:
>>
>>MediumRare spam occurrences, corrected promptly.
>>
>> -2.3 points seems entirely reasonable.
>>
>> But
Arne Jensen writes:
> Den 12-11-2021 kl. 00:43 skrev Loren Wilton:
>> I have to admit I'd never paid much attention to the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_*
>> scores on spam before.
> [...]
>> Looking at spam for last month, [...]
>>
>> But I do have 12 pretty blatent spams that hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI.
>> It makes
Den 12-11-2021 kl. 00:43 skrev Loren Wilton:
I have to admit I'd never paid much attention to the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_*
scores on spam before.
[...]
Looking at spam for last month, [...]
But I do have 12 pretty blatent spams that hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI.
It makes me wonder just how useful a rule it i
Den 11-11-2021 kl. 20:21 skrev Greg Troxel:
It's a really interesting question what DNSWL_MED ought to be for score.
Given what MED is supposed to be:
Medium Rare spam occurrences, corrected promptly.
-2.3 points seems entirely reasonable.
But I don't see how gmail makes sense being
On 2021-11-12 00:43, Loren Wilton wrote:
[172.105.221. 77] li1875-77.members.linode.com
[178. 79.178. 52] li347-52.members.linode.com
imho its safe to reject *.members.linode.com
with is default for all linode vps that only need a homepage :=)
On 2021-11-11 21:15, Matija Nalis wrote:
I guess you could disable default DNSWL_MED score with:
score DNSWL_MED 0
and then create your own score:
metaMY_DNSWL_MEDDNSWL_MED && !FREEMAIL_FROM
score MY_DNSWL_MED-2.5
good rule if score DNSWL_MED is not zerro
keep
score DNSWL_ME
I have to admit I'd never paid much attention to the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* scores
on spam before.
Looking at spam for last month, I don't have a single RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED.
But I do have 12 pretty blatent spams that hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI.
It makes me wonder just how useful a rule it is.
Especially when
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:21:06PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> yes, what I really want is something like
>
> exclude_from_dnswlgmail
I guess you could disable default DNSWL_MED score with:
score DNSWL_MED 0
and then create your own score:
metaMY_DNSWL_MEDDNSWL_MED && !FREEMAIL_FROM
Philipp Ewald writes:
> You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
>
> @gmail.com>
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
>
> https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
I tried to find gmail being on DNSWL_MED and I haven't been able to.
There are google.com servers on DNSWL_NONE.
Can someone explain what addresses are
Bill Cole writes:
>> I've ended up giving a point each to FREEMAIL_FROM and TO_GMAIL, which
>> sort of nulls that out.
>
> Also: the DNSWL rules in the default ruleset are mis-scored, based
> apparently on a Perceptron run early in the history of SA and DNSWL. I
> don't know exactly how to fix t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
>>>It would be really nice if there were an easy way to exclude a domain
>>>from whitelist checks.
>
> On 11.11.21 17:24, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>add
>>
>>freemail_whitelist gmail.com
>>
>>to local.cf
>>
>> its not a whitelist, more a skip gmail.com as a freemail i
On 2021-11-11 13:56, Greg Troxel wrote:
Philipp Ewald writes:
You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
@gmail.com>
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
As far as i know DNSWL is used by default
I've ended up giving a point each to FREEMAIL_FROM and TO_GMAIL, which
sort of
I use DNSWLh spamassassin plugin from
http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/sa_plugin/
which allows that "spamassassin --report" also reports to DNSWL, thus improving
DNSWL database for everybody.
Also, I reduce effect of RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED to -0.5 as default seems
somewhat unreasonable.
On Thu, 11
On 2021-11-11 13:56, Greg Troxel wrote:
Philipp Ewald writes:
You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
@gmail.com>
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
As far as i know DNSWL is used by default
I've ended up giving a point each to FREEMAIL_FROM and TO_GMAIL, which
sort of
On 2021-11-11 at 07:56:59 UTC-0500 (Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:56:59 -0500)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Philipp Ewald writes:
>
>> You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
>>
>> @gmail.com>
>> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
>>
>> https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
>>
>> As far as i know DNSWL is used by
Philipp Ewald writes:
> You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
>
> @gmail.com>
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
>
> https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
>
> As far as i know DNSWL is used by default
I've ended up giving a point each to FREEMAIL_FROM and TO_GMAIL, which
sort of nulls that out.
It would be r
This is _exactly_ why I zero out whitelists. A decent portion of spam
being rejected here is from gmail, far more than from outlook and co.
Trust can only be earned, not bought and not assumed, whitelists should
have no place in SA, and why always use clear_uridnsbl_skip_domain
On 11/11/202
You can report it. Gmail is on DNSWL
@gmail.com>
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=17
As far as i know DNSWL is used by default
On 11/8/21 7:27 PM, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Spammers are using gmail.com. Congratulations to Google for their fine work...
Original Mes
On 11/9/2021 9:28 AM, Alan wrote:
This is why I flood their abuse box with reports: problem comes back.
Eventually some brain cell will realize that it's not doing much for
their brand. Moments later it will become an Important Issue, because
brand is everything these days.
nguyenvietcuong123
The same with Microsoft365...
A couple of weeks ago tons of M365 IP ranges got into their own RBLs... good
job!!!
Pedreter.
>On Tuesday, November 9, 2021, 01:09:39 PM GMT+1, Peter
wrote: >
>This has been going on for a long time, Google is now one of my top spam
>scources - I black
This is why I flood their abuse box with reports: problem comes back.
Eventually some brain cell will realize that it's not doing much for
their brand. Moments later it will become an Important Issue, because
brand is everything these days.
On 2021-11-09 08:49, Jared Hall wrote:
On 11/8/2021
On 11/8/2021 11:36 PM, Peter wrote:
It seems that people aren't taking google as seriously any more.
First came Freemail. Then came SpamAssassin. I DO think that people
take Google seriously. There are just so many ways to deal with this
problem - none of which is better than any other.
Go
On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 18:27 +, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Spammers are using gmail.com. Congratulations to Google for their fine
> work...
>
The more 'enterprising' ones are apparently sex come-ons, but contain
links to known-malicious URL shorteners.
Martin
A real spike lately, too. Send messages with full headers to
ab...@gmail.com. It might be a bit bucket since I've never heard
anything back, but it can't hurt.
On 2021-11-08 13:27, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Spammers are using gmail.com. Congratulations to Google for their fine
work...
28 matches
Mail list logo
