On 23.11.09 12:19, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> I'm not really familiar with HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI and I'm interested to
> know who is behind it, and how it relates to the Spamassassin project.
HABEAS was company acquired by ReturnPath. It tries to help out differing
between legal marketing com
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
You should complain to ReturnPath
Or just change the scores from -8.0 to +2.0
Or just report it...
"Sender Abuse and Complaint Reporting
Any concerns or complaints regarding the Return Path Certification program can be
submitted to certificat...@returnpath.net. "
Cheers,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk írta:
I'm not really familiar with HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI and I'm interested
Thanks to Matus for the explanation, LuKreme for the suggestion on
scoring and Hajdu for the contact details. I am obliged to you and thank
you for your time.
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
>> You should complain to ReturnPath
On 23.11.09 06:40, LuKreme wrote:
> Or just change the scores from -8.0 to +2.0
Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; htt
Hello,
how do i use the data of project honeypot in spamassassin?
thx
Sebastian
FYI, thought this might be of interest.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:39:46 -0500
From: Knujon Reports
Reply-To: cont...@knujon.com
Subject: Massive Crackdown on Internet Drug Traffic
Hello,
We are seeing the beginning of a new chapter in Internet compliance
Hi.
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
Unfortunately, the rule that I have:
header L_UNDISCLOSEDTo:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ?;/
describe L_UNDISCLOSED To: list is meaningless and no Cc:
score L_UN
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Hi.
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
I went round and round with this a while back.
SA 3.25 has a problem with perl null vs 0 vs ''.
so a To header (or CC header) with no content looks like
On 11/23/2009 12:10 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
>>
>> To: undisclosed recipients: ;
>>
>> with no Cc: line.
>>
>>
>>
> I went round and round with this a while back.
>
> SA 3.25 has a pro
Philip Prindeville wrote:
but as you say, if it can't tell the difference between "" and undef,
then that's an issue.
use header ALL to check for a \nCC
(which could be blank)
or just use your MTA to reject it at SMTPtime.
On 11/23/2009 12:18 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>>
>> but as you say, if it can't tell the difference between "" and undef,
>> then that's an issue.
>>
>>
>>
> use header ALL to check for a \nCC
> (which could be blank)
>
> or just use your MTA to reject it
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> You should complain to ReturnPath. Iirc, HABEAS used to sue spammers
> misusing their technology. Don't know if ReturnPath continues prac ticing
> this.
Actually, you're confusing Habeas's first technology (which involved suing
misuse
From: "J.D. Falk"
Sent: Monday, 2009/November/23 13:37
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You should complain to ReturnPath. Iirc, HABEAS used to sue spammers
misusing their technology. Don't know if ReturnPath continues prac ticing
this.
Actually, you're confusing H
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, jdow wrote:
> From: "J.D. Falk"
> Sent: Monday, 2009/November/23 13:37
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> You should complain to ReturnPath. Iirc, HABEAS used to sue spammers
>> misusing their technology. Don't know if ReturnPath
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
> >
> > Did you look at the logs you posted?
> > NONE of the DNS tests are being launched on msg 26661
>
> Yes, that is the problem. They run with `spamassassin`, but
> they do not run from `spamd`.
>
> Do
OMG I am SO DUMB - I had skip_rbl_checks set in my personal
userconf. DUH.
Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions - actually it
was working fine from the beginning.
Mark
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
indicator of spam. It does not appear in legitimate mail.
I don't know who these legitimate markete
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville > wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
What's Cc: have to do with it? undisclosed recipients is used for
Bcc: mail
I used it all the time. And you WILL 'block' legiti
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:08 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
>
> We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
> indicator of spam. It does not appear
On tir 24 nov 2009 01:11:38 CET, LuKreme wrote
I used it all the time. And you WILL 'block' legitimate mail.
and thats always sender to decide its legitimate :)
i see a pattern there
--
xpoint
Unless there are objections, I'm going to add two tests to my sandbox:
RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM, a new (to us) DNSBL populated by the same source as
the original [N]iXhash zone, with results on intra2net that look quite
promising: 72.98:0.12 spam:ham (PSBL has 48.69:0.36),
http://www.intra2net.com/en/sup
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
undisclosed recipients is used for Bcc: mail
I used it all the time. And you WILL 'block' legitimate mail.
Gra
On 11/23/2009 07:34 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
Unless there are objections, I'm going to add two tests to my sandbox:
RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM, a new (to us) DNSBL populated by the same source as
the original [N]iXhash zone, with results on intra2net that look quite
promising: 72.98:0.12 spam:ham (PSBL has 4
On 11/23/2009 05:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
>>
>> To: undisclosed recipients: ;
>>
>> with no Cc: line.
>>
> What's Cc: have to do with it? undisclosed recipients is use
On 11/23/2009 05:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
>>
>> To: undisclosed recipients: ;
>>
>> with no Cc: line.
>>
> What's Cc: have to do with it? undisclosed recipients is use
Warren Togami wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 07:34 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>> Unless there are objections, I'm going to add two tests to my sandbox:
>>
>> RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM, a new (to us) DNSBL populated by the same source as
>> the original [N]iXhash zone, with results on intra2net that look quite
>> promisin
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:08 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
>
> We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
> indicator of spam. It does not appear
28 matches
Mail list logo
