W dniu 2016-11-03 15:34, MHielder napisał(a):
UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
that they do charge money for delisting entries.
And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this
kind of information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > >> From a legal perspective I will point out that any e-mail you
> > >>
> > >>receive is (at least in the US, but most other countries too)
> > >>considered copyrighted by the sender. Under copyright law the
> > >>sender has the right t
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Furthermore, many copyright laws have "permitted use"
> > (sorry, don't know the right english term for it) instead of fair use
> > which explicitly says what can be done with a work after its first
> > publishing. And this use cannot be li
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>> Furthermore, many copyright laws have "permitted use"
> >>> (sorry, don't know the right english term for it) instead of fair use
> >>> which explicitly says what can be done with a work after its first
> >>> publishing. And this use cann
RelayCountry plugin does the work for you. You configure it to score certain
relay countries (looked up by ip extracted from headers, not DNS domain of the
sender) and it just does so. I've used it for few years and it works very well.
(Since I don't expect any traffic at all from i.e. Vietnam,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:53:13PM -, Marcin Praczko wrote:
> It is possible add some text to Subject: For example [SPLIST] - to make
> easier set up filter for emails?
What for? This list already gives quite a few headers that should be
enough for filtering.
--
d'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'Yb
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:20 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would somebody please let me know what is required to get it to work :) I
> have installed the Perl module and enabled the plugin but it never appears to
> hit :(
The plugin itself only adds metadata to the message. You need to
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:29 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> - "Mariusz Kruk" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:20 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Would somebody please let me know what is required to get it to work
> &g
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:49 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > You say that you installed the Perl module - you mean the
> > RelayCountry
> > plugin or the IP::Country::Fast module? (needed by the RC module)
> IP::Country::Fast as defined in the requirements.
Does `spamassassin --lint --debug' say a
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:54 +0100, RW wrote:
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a bit hacked of with
> > this 1980's style forum. I'm trying to get to the bottom of an SA
> > issue and this list/forum thing is giving me a bigger headache than
> > SA!
[...]
> And if you think email
that use this RBL by
default. Otherwise noone in their sane minds would use this (at least
not any levels higher than 1).
--
Mariusz Kruk
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> >> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> >> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big sc
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> > 1. Listing
> Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
> rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, you have (for example on spam
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:06 -0300, Walter Breno wrote:
> I'm using postfix with mailscanner to integrate spamassassin and
> clamav, but when spamassassin score a message as spam the subject of
> the message is chagnged to {Spam?} subject and i want to send every
> message that spamassasin mark dire
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 21:55 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> How can I write a rule on the primary server that will automatically
> consider the message as spam is the other server detected it as spam.
>
> I tried:
> header PREVIOUS_SPAM X-Spam-Flag =~ /YES/,
> header PREVIOUS_SPAM X-Spam-Status
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 23:58 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> 2010/1/14 Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> > well, you either trust SA on secondary MX - then don't run the mail through
> > SA again.
>
> But not all mails go through the 2nd MX ; so this is exactly what I
> want to do: don't run SA if it we
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:24 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > that's just what I said - don't run mail through SA _again_.
> Uh Duh!
>
> Do you think I'll be asking here if I knew how to do it?
Your initial question was not "how to not run articular messages thru
SA", but "How to score on exist
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:41 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > Your initial question was not "how to not run articular messages thru
> > SA", but "How to score on existing spam headers". That's a different
> > issue.
> I wanted to mark as spam, mais already tagged spam . At the end of the
> day, I
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:47 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > In a previous post, i have request a information, can i use one
> > central bayes database
> > for a lot of SpamAssassin Server.
> >
> > I have received a answer: Yes
> >
> > But what is the process ?
>
> I use a common bayes database
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Well, I guess it depends on your point of view - how difficult is it
> >> to set up an MTA to reject mails pretending to be from
> >> that didn't originate on your MTA?
> > Good question - how would you do it?
>
> Postfix: I would have tw
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > I guess you could start hashing things around
> > with IPTables to redirect certain requests, but once you've done all
> > of this, changed all the clients etc. etc, you are saying this would
> > be *easier* than SPF?
> See Mariusz Kruks sugg
send mails for
domain1.com, so it refuses to accept such mail.
We were talking about (let's assume we're domain3.com) not letting people from
outside world send mail "from" domain3.com.
--
Kruk@ -\ |
}-> epsilon.eu.org |
http:// -/ |
|
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
> No, they submit on 25 using TLS+SASL. Would making
> the changes to Firewall, MTA, plus potentially thosands of clients be
> easier than SPF? Would all those angry users screaming because they
> can't send mail at all be a good thing? I don
On Wednesday, 31 of March 2010, David wrote:
> I've just found that line on the spamc man page:
>
> "-K Perform a keep-alive check of spamd, instead of a full message check."
>
> Someone knows what it means, and what it actually does?
It does what it says. Keep-alive means check means just conn
On Friday, 2 of April 2010, Mathias Homann wrote:
> how would i make a rule that scores for mails that contain an url
> under the TLD .xx but haven't gone through at least one relay in the
> same country?
>
> how would I make a rule that scores for mails that contain an URL that
> is _hosted_ in
On Wednesday, 7 of April 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here's another good list that rates quality.
>
> http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/index.php
The methodology behind this rating is kinda peculiar.
What good is counting messages hit by lists? If I make a DNSBL which just
marks gmail
ld filter domains at MTA level. That way you would feed mails
to SA depending on what domain the mail is for. SA would have nothing to worry
about.
--
Kruk@ -\ |
}-> epsilon.eu.org |
http:// -/ |
|
On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote:
> It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-)
> 1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
> In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
> Level 1 addr
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
> including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
> doing this now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
> reasons.
Of co
our mailserver has a URL embedded in the header from which abuse
> can be reported.
Whois record shows contact info. And usually abuse mailbox. But
UCEPROTECT is not interested in reporting. They are interested in
listing so maybe someone pays them.
Reporting could lead to actu
clearly not UCEPROTECT's
policy.
--
Kruk@ -\ |
}-> epsilon.eu.org |
http:// -/ |
|
I have Spamassassin 3.1.9 running on RedHat 4 and 5 and it seems to
exhibit the following weird problem.
The setup is as follows: mail servers are dedicated for spam
filtering. All incoming messages are fed to SpamAssassin via
spamass-milter and then spamd. Then the messages are handed off to
Mic
On czw, 2008-09-11 at 07:53 -0500, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> Folks, I'm trying to capture/grep specific given info from the subject
> output, like this:
>
> #spamassassin -D --lint | grep database
>
> I KNOW that doesn't work, but describes my issue at hand. I've spent an
> hour+ searching for other
er to give the actual solution:
>
> spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1 | grep database
Unless, of course, you're using another shell.
I'd send the original asker to man page of his shell anyway. To read
about input/output redirection. It can be quite useful in many other
cases.
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 04:58 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently running a postfix server and spamassassin under Fedora Core 8.
> Everyhting is OK but i'd like to redirect tagged [SPAM] mails to a mailbox.
>
> I did the following:
>
> #Edit /etc/postfix/main.cf
> header_checks =
"normal" regexp. (I
think pcre introduce the alternative notation with parentheses).
--
Kruk@ -\ | C++ PROGRAMMERS do it with private members
}-> epsilon.eu.org | and public objects
http:// -/ |
|
First of all, please don't toppost. It's very annoying.
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 06:04 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> I just tried your last syntax:
> /^X-Spam-Status:[.*](Yes|YES)/ REDIRECT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not my syntax. I pasted it from your mail.
> It doesnt work, all mails are normally deli
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 06:39 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> hi Marius,
>
> I've check the headers of [SPAM] mails: There's X-Spam-Status: Yes.
OK. So the SA seems to be working.
> I'm sorry but i'm not familiar with regular express:
There is quite a lot of information out there about standard regex
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 14:49 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > > Ok, it's getting better now but all my emails are forwared to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Even those which are not tagged as [SPAM]
> > > I guess i have some troubles with the regular expression.
> > > Can you help me in the syntax
On śro, 2008-10-22 at 00:01 -0700, TN wrote:
> It seems that almost everyone wants spamassasin before SMTP,
Nh.
> so we can afford to accept spam and filter it after SMTP.
What are you using for local delivery? The most common solution, I think
is to use procmail and just include a rule that
ject: text', which is totaly untrue.
IT happens with OE mails (didn't notice other cases, but it doesn't mean
it doesn't happen).
Below I include some headers and part of the body of the message.
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-kruk (2006-10-05) on
Daniel Aquino napisał(a):
Does anyone know actually know where the:
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::RelayCountry"
module is actually ran ?
I dont see anything in /usr/share/spamassassin/* that is doing it...
I don't know about you, but I have:
epsilon:/etc/spamassassin> grep RelayCountry *
init.
43 matches
Mail list logo
