On 10-Feb-2010, at 02:42, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>
> At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages
> classified as Spam. However, I also deliver the message into a read only
> "Junk E-Mail" folder for the user,
This is just wrong. Either accept the message, or reject the
- dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
>
> --
> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
> and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
> http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Like the simplicity and it does appear to be a great idea. Wh
On 11/02/2010 08:27, LuKreme wrote:
At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages classified as Spam.
However, I also deliver the message into a read only "Junk E-Mail" folder for the user,
This is just wrong. Either accept the message, or reject the message. Rejecting
On Don, 2010-02-11 at 10:38 +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> On 11/02/2010 08:27, LuKreme wrote:
> >> At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages
> >> classified as Spam. However, I also deliver the message into a read only
> >> "Junk E-Mail" folder for the user,
> >
> > Th
On 11/02/2010 11:26, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages classified as Spam.
However, I also deliver the message into a read only "Junk E-Mail" folder for the user,
This is just wrong. Either accept the message, or reject the
message
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:26:03 +0100
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Don, 2010-02-11 at 10:38 +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> > On 11/02/2010 08:27, LuKreme wrote:
> > >> At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for
> > >> messages classified as Spam. However, I also deliver the message
RW wrote:
>> >
>> > Bob could also have just clicked the link in the NDR.
>> Some people - e.g. /me - do not try to pass Turing tests. Obviously
>> you are not interested in my mails anyway
>
> But it's only applied to mail classified as spam, and unlike CR it
> generates no additional bac
On 02/11, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Like the simplicity and it does appear to be a great idea. Why do you
> believe SPF or DKIM generate breakage ?
Thank you.
SPF breakage occurs where a user has configured one of their email
addresses to automatically forward their mail to another of their email
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do
is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually
identifiable name, like starting with "smtp".
Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com
> wrote:
>> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
>
> What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have
> to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an
> actually identifiable nam
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:45:32PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com
> > wrote:
> >> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
> >
> > What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have
> > to do is to requir
On 2/11/2010 8:08 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
> The only minor issue I see is that a lot
> of people don't understand NDRs (or can't be bothered to try to).
True. Also, a lot of mail relays mangle NDR's beyond usability.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages
> classified as Spam. However, I also deliver the message into a read only
What kind of mail load do you service? It takes a significant amount of
time for s
On 11/02/2010 15:49, David Morton wrote:
At SMTP time I return a 5xx code during the "DATA" phase for messages
classified as Spam. However, I also deliver the message into a read only
What kind of mail load do you service?
On this system, not much. On the scale of about 6,000 messages a day.
On 02/11, Henrik K wrote:
> What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do
> is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually
> identifiable name, like starting with "smtp". Much simpler to take advantage
> of that and it actually is somewhat used t
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:49:32AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
>
> This is why amavisd* variants always accept the mail and then process
You are wrong: amavisd-milter works fine here.
Pre-queue filtering is generally well understood with it's pros and cons, no
point taking it up here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> On this system, not much. On the scale of about 6,000 messages a day.
Very light duty then. :)
> Even if SpamAssassin isn't used during SMTP, there's nothing stopping
> somebody who wants to DOS you from just setting their DOS
On 11/02/2010 16:23, David Morton wrote:
On this system, not much. On the scale of about 6,000 messages a day.
Very light duty then. :)
Even if SpamAssassin isn't used during SMTP, there's nothing stopping
somebody who wants to DOS you from just setting their DOS tool to hold
open connection
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 02/11, Henrik K wrote:
>
>> What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do
>> is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually
>> identifiable name, like starting with "smtp". Much simpler to take advantage
>> o
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for
curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page.
You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine abou
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
>
> You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for
> curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page.
What page were you looking at? All I see at
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > On 02/11, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> >> What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do
> >> is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually
> >> identif
On 09.02.10 11:42, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I apparently need to clarify that I think this is a good idea because I am
> concerned about the number of people (who control DNS records) who are very
> strongly against creating SPF records specifically because of forwarding
> breakage. The ema
From: Charles Gregory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:55:10 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for
curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-as
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote:
> What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do
> is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually
> i
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:25:07PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > > http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
>
> On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote:
> > What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > > > http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
> > On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote:
> > > What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to
> > > do
> > > is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS
On Don, 2010-02-11 at 11:52 +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
[...]
> Let me explain this in simple terms.
>
> Normal behaviour:
>
> Spam filtering causes a 5xx rejection. You get an NDR. You either
> contact the user some other way or not at all.
Spam filtering rejects valid non-spam because it mis-i
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:42:44PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > > > > http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
>
> > > On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote:
> > > > What a complex scheme you invented for a simple probl
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
What page were you looking at? All I see at that URL is a fairly
straightforward description of how to implement his MTX system.
The page 'redirects' to this one: http://www.chaosreigns.com/fail
It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read
On 11/02/2010 17:08, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> Let me explain this in simple terms.
>>
>> Normal behaviour:
>>
>> Spam filtering causes a 5xx rejection. You get an NDR. You either
>> contact the user some other way or not at all.
> Spam filtering rejects valid non-spam because it mis-identified
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 09.02.10 11:42, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>> I apparently need to clarify that I think this is a good idea because
>> I am concerned about the number of people (who control DNS records)
>> who are very strongly against creating SPF records specifically
>> bec
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Imho, SPF does NOT break forwarding.
On 11.02.10 19:37, Per Jessen wrote:
> Hmm, the SRS people seem to disagree:
>
> http://www.openspf.org/SRS : SPF "breaks" email forwarding.
I think those quotes say it all. SRS is a way to create correct and
trackable fo
On 11/02/2010 18:52, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> Imho, SPF does NOT break forwarding.
>
> On 11.02.10 19:37, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Hmm, the SRS people seem to disagree:
>>
>> http://www.openspf.org/SRS : SPF "breaks" email forwarding.
>
> I think those quotes say it all. SRS is a way to c
Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 11/02/2010 17:08, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Let me explain this in simple terms.
Normal behaviour:
Spam filtering causes a 5xx rejection. You get an NDR. You either
contact the user some other way or not at all.
Spam filtering rejects valid non-spam because it mis-ide
On Don, 2010-02-11 at 18:26 +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
[...]
> I want you to describe a scenario where the sender or recipient are
> actually worse off because of the particular two features I've
The point is: The sender is worse off because he needs to invest time
for the workaround which is caus
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > Imho, SPF does NOT break forwarding.
>
> On 11.02.10 19:37, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Hmm, the SRS people seem to disagree:
>>
>> http://www.openspf.org/SRS : SPF "breaks" email forwarding.
>
> I think those quotes say it all. SRS
On 11-Feb-2010, at 09:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine about the
> evils of microsoft all you want, but if you are going to post a link
> with the intent for the 'average' person to read it, then you better make it
> *accessible*
On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using
> Internet Explorer,
Good. Get a real browser.
> with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser.
It is, and this is explained clearly. IE does
LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
>> It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using
>> Internet Explorer,
>>
>
> Good. Get a real browser.
>
>
>> with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser.
>>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
Erm.. The string "microsoft" doesn't even exist on that page.
"No Microsoft browser supports this 9 year old standard."
Obviously you are't using IE and so you weren't subjected to the
arrogant refusal of his server to deliver the requested page.
(shrug)
-
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site
using Internet Explorer,
Good. Get a real browser.
Like I said, he (and you) can rant all you want about the evils of
Microsoft, and frankly I wouldn't be inclined to argue with you. (grin)
On 02/11, Henrik K wrote:
> method of whitelisting. You can't seriously expect to block on some
> attribute that not everyone can or bothers to change (DNS). None of this
Correct.
I am not suggesting that anyone block anything based on MTX at this time.
I suggest using it for whitelisting (small
We're getting a boatload of To and From addresses starting with pipe
characters on one of our clients' mailservers. The messages themselves
don't appear particularly malicious -- the ones we've seen are just
pill spam -- but there are craploads of them.
I was thinking about configuring an SA rule
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I would blame whoever set up the website. The page in question does not
even attempt to use the features that the "fail" page refers to.
(nod) I guess that really says it all
Thanks for mentioning this. Now my 'vague feeling' is confirmed.
- C
Bowie Bailey wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote:
It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using
Internet Explorer,
Good. Get a real browser.
with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser.
On 11/02/2010 19:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Secondly with regards to this reject-but-save system that Mike is
> expounding on - it is an instance of a system that only works because
> a few people (or one person) is doing it. It is totally worthless as
> anything that can be scaled to multiple
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Don, 2010-02-11 at 18:26 +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
[...]
I want you to describe a scenario where the sender or recipient are
actually worse off because of the particular two features I've
The point is: The sender is worse off because he needs to invest time
for the
On 11/02/2010 19:52, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> I want you to describe a scenario where the sender or recipient are
>> actually worse off because of the particular two features I've
> The point is: The sender is worse off because he needs to invest time
> for the workaround which is caused by the
I was trying to teach spamassassin 3.3.0 today with a rather large
spam message and I got this error message when I did sa-learn:
Feb 11 14:47:51.262 [5414] info: archive-iterator: skipping large message
The message is 279959 bytes and about 20% is Russian text and other
80% is two gif image a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> The claim that amavisd* variants accept then process mail
> is nonsense, nobody who runs a large mailserver with amavisd could
> possibly have their server configured in this manner without it melting
> down, so please no mor
On Friday February 12 2010 00:28:24 David Morton wrote:
> Of course you 5xx reject unknown users and other low hanging fruit
> that identifes bad stuff - but then the rest is accepted to process
> later. This is exactly how most amavisd variants work.
Btw, with the most recent advances in SpamAs
David Morton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The claim that amavisd* variants accept then process mail
is nonsense, nobody who runs a large mailserver with amavisd could
possibly have their server configured in this manner without it melting
down, s
Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 11/02/2010 19:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
All I can see above is a long list of dubious predictions of what
spammers would do if everybody used the same system as me. I can't be
bothered with this thread anymore.
You can't be bothered - yet you continued responding
Am 11.02.2010 22:37, schrieb Spiro Harvey:
> We're getting a boatload of To and From addresses starting with pipe
> characters on one of our clients' mailservers. The messages themselves
> don't appear particularly malicious -- the ones we've seen are just
> pill spam -- but there are craploads of
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:40:04 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> case - but I sure as hell would never be foolish enough to try and
> defend it. These hacks simply scream "I got mine and I don't give
> a damn if you got yours",
Isn't that really your position - that 5xx responses make the botnet
56 matches
Mail list logo
