>...
>On Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 3:33:47 AM, Leonard SA wrote:
>> Hello,
>
>> I have had to remove spamcop from my rbl check list. they have had some
>> legitimate mail servers listed recently. They had the gentoo mail list
>> listed and some other important servers which i cant see why the
ber 23, 2005 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: spamcop.net tactics
On Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 5:39:05 AM, Leonard SA wrote:
Jeff,
I found this out yesterday after enabling the RBL lookups in the local.cf
config file. Its great to get a high score slash because they are listed
in
the rbl list, bu
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ed Kasky wrote:
> I for one would be interested to know how you implement a filter like this.
> It's one of the things that keeps me from using it sometimes...
procmail does wonders, just don't call vacation for anything marked as spam.
We use that plus some other checks:
:
Jeff,
Thanks again ..
Regards ..
Leonard
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leonard SA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: spamcop.net tactics
On Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 5:3
On Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 3:33:47 AM, Leonard SA wrote:
> Hello,
> I have had to remove spamcop from my rbl check list. they have had some
> legitimate mail servers listed recently. They had the gentoo mail list
> listed and some other important servers which i cant see why they were
> a
: "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: spamcop.net tactics
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
So simply by having users use 'vacation' or viruses/worms
sending themselves from faked spam-trap-addr
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
> So simply by having users use 'vacation' or viruses/worms
> sending themselves from faked spam-trap-addresses and bouncing
> at your site, you can be blacklisted for 24 hours (for each?).
By having users use vacation without a filter to stop it from
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:24:28AM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
> That doesn't mean it's a moral, an ethical or respectable reason:
> "Spite" is reason enough for most people these days.
>
> Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
>
> >if your IPs end up in there it's usually for a
> >reason.
Before
That doesn't mean it's a moral, an ethical or respectable reason:
"Spite" is reason enough for most people these days.
Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
if your IPs end up in there it's usually for a
reason.
Michele
On Monday, November 21, 2005, 8:39:13 PM, Amos Amos wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> detect it, then yes your IPs can get blacklisted. The best way
>> to solve that is to stop the emission of spam from your network.
> It's easier to do when the source is identified.
On 11/21/05, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> detect it, then yes your IPs can get blacklisted. The best way
> to solve that is to stop the emission of spam from your network.
It's easier to do when the source is identified.
> As was already suggested, one good way to do that is to block
>
SpamCop simply notes what addresses appear to be emitting spam.
If your network is emitting spam and SpamCop users or traps
detect it, then yes your IPs can get blacklisted. The best way
to solve that is to stop the emission of spam from your network.
As was already suggested, one good way to do
> Seems to me like setting up a firewall or network logger should make it
pretty
> easy to see what is sending out inordinate amounts of traffic on port 25.
Or
> you could just block port 25 outgoing as a matter of policy and force
people
> to go out through the university mail servers. No one
Amos wrote:
Just recently we discovered we've been tagged by spamcop. Since the
spamtrap is "secrete", there's no way to know what incident triggered
this event, which makes it pretty damn difficult to track it down to
try to deal with it. Furthermore, a site has only one chance to delist
their s
Amos wrote:
I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
if this was a complete authoritarian state. We try hard to control and
mini
On Monday 21 November 2005 10:11, Amos wrote:
> I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
> SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
> single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
> if this was a complete authoritarian
Amos wrote:
> I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
> SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
> single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
> if this was a complete authoritarian state. We try hard to control and
Amos wrote:
> I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
> SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
> single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
> if this was a complete authoritarian state. We try hard to control and
November 21, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: spamcop.net tactics
| I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
| SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
| single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
| if this was a complete auth
I must say I'm not particularly thrilled about the tactics employed by
SpamCop. At a university it is sometimes difficult to control every
single thing that everybody does on campus, unless of course perhaps
if this was a complete authoritarian state. We try hard to control and
minimize spamming ev
20 matches
Mail list logo
