> I don't know how this will work but I'm building the data now. For
> those of you who are familiar with Day old bread lists to detect new
> domains, as you know there's a lag time in the data and they often
> don't have data from all the registries. So - here's a different
> solution.
>
> What I
"RobertH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.org
On my primary mx, today I had 94 mails that hit a zen list but not brbl,
591 that hit a zen list and brbl, and 8042 that hit brbl but not zen.
I am checking -lastexter
On 9/23/2008 5:25 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
FIW:
12 hr stats / tiny traffic trap box - no ham
I use a couple of DNSWLs to reject traffic from potential hammy IPs
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
1RCVD_BARRACUDA 19721 83.30
Joseph Brennan wrote ... (9/23/2008 2:37 PM):
> No, they don't, really. They 'may' do that (see below). Try it.
>
> Effective immediately: AOL
> 220- may no longer accept connections from IP addresses which
> 220 have no reverse-DNS (PTR record) assigned.
According to AOL's Poli
Just an update. I contacted Barracuda and they have resolved their rDNS
issue. They also provided a link so that those that did not receive
their original confirmation emails can have it resent.
Original Message
Subject: RE: BarracudaCentral Contact
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:13:
I've noticed since Sunday I've not seen any new posts to the list. Looking at
the archives I see that there are in fact quite a few that for some reason
haven't made it to me. Wondering if Embarq is blocking things again.
Apologies if this is received at the list twice.
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7
I've noticed since Sunday I've not seen any new posts to the list. Looking at
the archives I see that there are in fact quite a few that for some reason
haven't made it to me. Wondering if Embarq is blocking things again.
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
pgpzc7aERyCt4.pgp
Description: PGP si
Marc Perkel wrote:
Blaine Fleming wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Why is it so flippin' difficult to get a feed of newly-registered
domain names?
Because the TLDs hate giving people access to the data and certainly
won't provide a feed without a bunch of cash involved. Even worse,
all the ccTL
Hi there,
I have 'rewrite_header Subject ===SPAM===' in my
local.cf but some spam messages are not tagged and some
others are !
Here are X-Spam-Status and Subject headers for these
untagged messages :
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL=-4.347,BAYES_50=0.001,
DO
On 24.09.08 15:53, Didier Rebeix wrote:
> I have 'rewrite_header Subject ===SPAM===' in my
> local.cf but some spam messages are not tagged and some
> others are !
>
> Here are X-Spam-Status and Subject headers for these
> untagged messages :
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0
Hi Bob,
Am 2008-09-20 18:22:25, schrieb Bob Proulx:
> I don't really know and hopefully others will have better
> suggestions. But the first thing I would try is to run spamassassin
> in local mode.
>
>Options:
> -L, --local Local tests only (no online tests
Am 2008-09-21 08:56:15, schrieb Matt Kettler:
> It looks like spamassassin is attempting to perform a bayes expiry, and
> you keep killing it before it can finish. It does need to do that once
> in a while, and it is slow.
I was not killing it, I was only watching the logfiles using tail
in
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-09-21 08:56:15, schrieb Matt Kettler:
It looks like spamassassin is attempting to perform a bayes expiry, and
you keep killing it before it can finish. It does need to do that once
in a while, and it is slow.
I was not killing it, I was o
I've seen a few false positives that hit MATCH_WORDS_5. Can someone
point me to this rule so I can try to determine what is causing the hit?
George Butler Associates, Inc.
Creating Remarkable Solutions
for a Higher Quality of Life
Alan Lehman, P.E.
Electrical/Critical Facilities Group
One Renner
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:52:27PM -0500, Alan Lehman wrote:
> I've seen a few false positives that hit MATCH_WORDS_5. Can someone
> point me to this rule so I can try to determine what is causing the hit?
As far as I can see, there is no such rule in the standard or updates
rulesets. Perhaps it'
Alan Lehman wrote:
> I've seen a few false positives that hit MATCH_WORDS_5. Can someone
> point me to this rule so I can try to determine what is causing the
> hit?
I don't have that rule on my system, so it must not be a default rule or
from one of the several SARE rule sets that I use.
Try gr
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:52:27PM -0500, Alan Lehman wrote:
> > I've seen a few false positives that hit MATCH_WORDS_5. Can someone
> > point me to this rule so I can try to determine what is causing the
> hit?
>
> As far as I can see, there is no such rule in the standard or updates
> rules
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
this DNSBL? For example, how does it compare to zen.spamhaus.org,
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.o
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
>>> this DNSBL? For example, how does it compar
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was actually hoping to use it like I use zen.spamhaus.org and dul.sorbs.net
and just reject emails listed on those. It is very rare that I get a false
positive from either, but their efficacy isn't what it used to be, either.
So, I just configur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was actually hoping to use it like I use zen.spamhaus.org and
dul.sorbs.net and just reject emails listed on those. It is very rare
that I get a false positive from either, but their efficacy isn't what
it used to be, e
Marc Perkel schrieb:
> And I don't yet know if it will work. I'm still building the list. I
> just wanted to throw the concept out there and see if it sparks
> innovation. It might turn out to be a dead end.
I don't think if this is really innovative (my own recollection goes
back to an experim
Karl Pearson schrieb:
> So, what about doing a whois query and 'grep' for the setup date? You
Good luck with parsing the myriad of output formats from the different
whois services. And good luck going after those that do not publish a
setup date (like eg the .de ccTLD).
-- Matthias
Didier Rebeix wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have 'rewrite_header Subject ===SPAM===' in my
> local.cf but some spam messages are not tagged and some
> others are !
>
> Here are X-Spam-Status and Subject headers for these
> untagged messages :
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0 tests=A
I just saw this mentioned on the Qmail list, and as I can still see
dsbl.org rules throughout SA, I thought others probably want to know
"DSBL is GONE and highly unlikely to return. Please remove it from your
mail server configuration"
http://www.dsbl.org/
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information S
Thanks Jason! I've opened bug 5988.
Regards,
Daryl
Hi,users@spamassassin.apache.org
I found error in /var/log/maillog
like this :
Sep 24 14:43:17 vm1gw1 spamd[22124]: spamd: connection from
localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] at port 42746 Sep 24 14:43:17 vm1gw1
spamd[22124]: spamd: setuid to nobody succeeded Sep 24 14:43:17 vm1gw1
>anyway,
>- zen is widely used. so even if it has an FP, the originator will have
problems sending to >a lot of places, and has enough incentives to get
delisted. In other words, the FPs caused by zen are "passed to the
originator" and are no more "our FPs"! (I hope you see what I mean).
> - we do
> Am 2008-09-20 18:22:25, schrieb Bob Proulx:
> > I don't really know and hopefully others will have better
> > suggestions. But the first thing I would try is to run spamassassin
> > in local mode.
> >
> >Options:
> > -L, --local Local tests only (no online
29 matches
Mail list logo
