On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
> processes.
>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
> > their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
> >
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:26 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Imag
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:25 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > ... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
>
> Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
> them all you
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:37 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote:
> LuKreme said the following on 7/31/09 3:27 PM:
> >> Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
> >> list, and offensive language here is inappropriate.
> >
> > I dunno, 'gay' isn't that offensive.
> >
> >
>
> Gay is *not
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:40 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
I'm sure that is mostly it, Linda. They don't seem to 'get' it.
Two things I observe in this whole 'barracuda-gate' posting;
1. Being 'offen
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 20:36 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> I find my users almost never look at the SPAM
> mailbox
There is an easy fix for that - take that facility away :-)
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 20:30 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Aug-2009, at 08:58, Charles Gregory wrote:
> > Again, I could be wrong, and would welcome input on this, but my
> > feeling is that a webmail interface is a lot more trouble for a
> > spammer to write scripts for?
>
It's not really any
The other day I recall someone mentioning they routinely block anything
where the mailer is MIME::Lite. I don't do this myself as any self
respecting spammer with more than a quarter of a brain cell is not going
to make a slip like that {a script kiddie may - but that is another
story}.
I noticed
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 06:30 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
>
> It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
> overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
> the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably g
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 16:13 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> > http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
> >
> > It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
> > overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
> > the list as compare
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 09:28 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 14-Aug-2009, at 09:03, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > my rbl beats everyone.
>
> It IS very effective at stopping spam. In fact, it stops 100% of spam.
>
> But it's sorta like the world's greatest ftp site (ftp://127.0.0.1/)
> which has aweso
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 18:33 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I've not laughed so much since I added a low priority mx pointing to
> > 127.0.0.1 .
>
> Heh. Looks like someone got there before me:
>
> http://rfc-i
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 16:56 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> My experience is that the barracuda lists are reasonably good. A few
> FP but not a lot.
I get more FP's with Barracuda than I do UCE Protect - which is rather
funny given the slating UCE Protect get.
> And if they are exceeding spamhaus the
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 00:51 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-Aug-2009, at 16:55, MySQL Student wrote:
> >> So perhaps instead of adding another RBL, maybe some admins need to
> >> consider adding in some HELO checking / rejection.
> > Can you explain a bit more here? What are you checking for, that th
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 06:39 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > I have to agree with LuKreme, my overnight had 446 blocked prior to RBL,
> > and only 387 by RBL. Again, noted that 'Barracuda' missed 43, 35 of
> > th
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:36 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
> >
> > But this is all *OT* and has no relevance to SA. Why this
> > list was spammed with an unscientific spin of a claim in the
> > first instance just shows the dark hand of Barracuda at work.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard,
>
> i imagine you
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 09:21 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
> > Richard Wrote:
> > No. Here is why. When someone posts a Barracuda send-up that
> > is questionable, it will still end up in the archives. It is,
> > therefore, relevant that any counter argument and supporting
> > material be archived with
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 09:49 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
> i want to publicly apologize to richard and the list.
>
> although i firmly stand behind what i posted, i should have done it off
> list.
>
> i ask richard and the list to please forgive me
>
> thanks you
>
> - rh
>
Don't worry about it - I
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 20:02 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
> > On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> Question - in Postfix do "user unknown" rejections still incur a dns
> >> RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
> >
> >
> > HELO/EHLO rejections
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 01:06 +0200, mouss wrote:
...
> in short, whatever jeff says, spamhaus is the one. the fundamental
> concept is not "how many spam it blocks", but "how much do I trust it".
>
Exactly!
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 08:06 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> else fight sender forgies in mta, and only accept spf pass, if sender
> domain is not with spf record count how many ham mails is comming from
> this domain, if none, then domain blacklist this sender, open again if
> there is spf la
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, mouss wrote:
> > Justin Mason a écrit :
> >> In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more
> >> recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help
> >> out. Comparative thi
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 00:51 -0700, franc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i just installed spamassassin 3.2.4 (running on Perl 5.8.8) with postfix
> 2.5.1 on a Ubuntu 8.04.
> Now i want to use a personal blacklist an i put into
>
> /etc/spamassassin/myblacklist.cf
>
> an put into it:
>
> blacklist_from mai
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 01:07 -0700, franc wrote:
>
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > To do this, somewhere near the end of your main.cf:
> > header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
> >
> > File /etc/postfix/header_checks looks like this:
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 01:07 -0700, franc wrote:
>
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > To do this, somewhere near the end of your main.cf:
> > header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
> >
> > File /etc/postfix/header_checks looks like this:
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 03:53 -0700, franc wrote:
>
>
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Create the blacklist file:
> > # vim /etc/spamassassin/blacklist.cf
> >
> > blacklist_from *...@aol.com
> > blacklist_from drop.t...@aol.com
> >
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
> linuxmagic wrote:
>
> Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
> approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam folder,
> produces zero backscatter from spam. Backs
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:45 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, linuxmagic wrote:
>
> I really like this quote from their sales web site:
>
> "Now you can have MagicSpam spam protection for your Postfix (Linux)
> Mail Servers. Complete with one click install"...
You
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 12:51 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:46:42 +0100
> "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
> > > linuxmagic wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
> > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
>
> How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman fo
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
> >>
> >> > Me. I work for on
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 09:30 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >&
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
> > > supporting a com
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 19:58 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> In other words, how comes you're only venting about the companies you
> despise, and don't even mention the whitelist with a single word?
>
> guenther
>
You need to deal with your personality issues - this is *not* about *you*
ei
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:38 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> I was just spammed by T-mobile (UK). Seems incredible that an otherwise
> reputable company would sink so low - does anyone know if spamming
> (given the right conditions) is legal in the UK ?
>
>
> /Per Jessen, Zürich
>
Recently I've caugh
I need to add this is in ADDITION to guidelines mostly aimed at junk
faxes published here and already quoted:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/privacy_and_electronic_communications.aspx
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:08 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 27-Oct-2009, at 04:53, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> > Why have any geocities specific rules any more if geocities doesn't
> > exist? It's not as if spammers can host their websites on geocities
> > anymore so there's no reason why a spammer would
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:50 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:42, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:08 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> >> On 27-Oct-2009, at 04:53, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> >> > Why have any geocities specific ru
I just found this one working:
http://uk.geocities.com/midsomerland/midsomerland_indexone.htm
so providence would suggest leaving things alone.
Anyone else seeing these today? Or seen them recently?
http://pastebin.com/m4e25954f
score=0.1
Subject was real neat:
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?B?WW91IFdvbiCjMQ==?=,750,000.00 GBP
You Won £750,000.00 GBP {surprised this did not bite}
End of the message is missing on the five of them that I've ha
Anyone else noticing lots of DNS timeouts on the Barracuda List today?
Looks like it's really struggling.
Perhaps they are hosting it on their own hardware now LOL.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 15:10 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Terry Carmen wrote:
> >> approval to a plan to permit Web addresses in characters other than the
> >> Latin alphabet, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Korean.
> > I'd be *really* surprised if these became popular
I don't see a great deal of spam from Hotmail, but often get it with
headers looking like this:
X-Originating-IP: [123.160.198.207]
From: joannie nolin
To: , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
A couple of observations;
123.160.198.207 - is on
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:29 -0500, Chris wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:46 +0000, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > http://pastebin.com/m53a550ce
> >
> > Somewhat unfortunately seen coming out of The Dana-Farber Cancer
> > Institute.
> >
> > Looking
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:35 -0500, Chris wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:59 +0000, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > I don't see a great deal of spam from Hotmail, but often get it with
> > headers looking like this:
> >
> > X-Originating-IP: [123.160.198.207]
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 08:05 -0500, Chris wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 12:53 +0000, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:29 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:46 +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 13:58 +, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:59:24 +
> "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote:
> > A couple of observations;
> > 123.160.198.207 - is on the PBL {deep in the heart of China} so is
> > possible to extend the network tests to l
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 16:30 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +0000, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 13:58 +, RW wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:59:24 +0000
> > > "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wr
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 18:49 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 03:33:59PM +0000, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > Uh, SpamAssassin parses X-Originating-IP and friends just fine. Of course
> > > PBL isn't going to hit it, since it's
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 22:31 +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> We regularly experience SA crashes on a Ubuntu Hardy machine. The setup is as
> follows:
>
> Postfix (2.5.1) -> SpamAssassin Milter (0.3.1-6) -> SpamAssassin
> (3.2.4-1ubuntu1.1)
>
> The milter is run like this:
>
> /usr/sbin/spa
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 10:55 +, Ned Slider wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > RUSSIAN_LINKS BODY: link to .ru
> >
> > Appears to miss the example:
> > http://pastebin.com/m7ae0f8ec
> >
> > Unless I'm missing something ?
> >
> >
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 23:54 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
> I just now found a phish in one of my spamtraps, no surprise there.
> The surprising thing is that it was sent out via a messagelabs.com
> mailserver, complete with headers indicating that it passed their virus
> checks.
> At my end spamassas
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:39 +, Chip M. wrote:
>
> Ugh. I just checked Twitter, and no SPF record. :(
No?
What's this?
;; ANSWER SECTION:
twitter.com.600 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:128.121.145.168
ip4:128.121.146.128/27 mx ptr a:postmaster.twitter.com
mx:one.textdrive.com i
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 07:56 -0500, Casartello, Thomas wrote:
> I’ve been getting a lot of non-scoring spam coming from hotmail over
> the last couple weeks. It’s one user that’s been complaining about it.
>
> Here’s a few samples:
{serious ascii murder commited}
I could not stop laughing at this
Running those through my SA gets the biggest hit for the second example
with the Indian link in the body. But that's a custom rule kindly given
to me by of one of the good people on this list.
I'm more concerned with this:
X-Originating-IP: [189.69.146.53]
In Brazil yet my relay module does not
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 17:12 +, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:09:18 +
> "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote:
>
> >
> > Running those through my SA gets the biggest hit for the second
> > example with the Indian link in the body. But that's a cu
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
> > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
>
> That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail t
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> > old gas.
>
> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> >> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> >> his answers just unsubscribe
> >>
> > Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> > nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially whe
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> > I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
> > ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
> > online connection, because you w
> > > > put it online. He still got hacked again at least once after that.
> > > >
> > > > I also heard stories of my son doing battle with hackers who had gotten
> > > >
> > > > into his Linux system.
>
> On 13.11.09 08:38,
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:40 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Am I the only one who thints that issues clearly off-topic should be sent
> off-list?
>
Your response was to correct an onlist reply to an onlist remark. Is
there some reason why you would feel it appropriate to off-list that?
AF
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
> Compare this report to a similar report last month.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
> The results below are
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam and others.
I'm inclined to think it's *not* clean and is viral.
EXAMPLE
http://pastebin.com/m730f90e9
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 20:34 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:07 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
> > Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
> > balancechecker.zip?
> >
> > This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears t
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:21 +1000, Res wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>> safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating.
>
> Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week,
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:00 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus
> does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs.
Is that a core feature of spamassassin Just in? Is it necessary to have
that data? Will 'Hey, I noticed
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:08 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:07 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
> >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
> >>> Is anyone else seeing an influx
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:29 -0800, Mark Hedges wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
> >
> > Hi. I've set up my own rbldnsd server. It's responding
> > to queries correctly, for example, I am trying to block
> > the server that this message comes from, 64.22.103.163.
> >
>
> I forgot
I think this may have been answered before, but I can't find it in the
archives.
Custom rules can be kept in /etc/spamassassin/whateva.cf files no
problem. I would like to keep some rules separate for maintenance, by
keeping rules I write in /etc/spamassassin/custom/, and some that
friends write i
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 17:10 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> man sa-update
Thanks, but all that says is making use of:
--updatedir
Will allow rules to be downloaded to a different directory.
What I'm looking to do is have SA look in these directories in addition
to the default locations. I don't
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 14:17 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > What I'm looking to do is have SA look in these directories in addition
> > to the default locations. I don't have a problem putting rules there
> > Benny. I have a problem getting SA to look there for them :-)
>
> Are you talking about d
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 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 Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:17 +0100, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> Habeas (nowdays ReturnPath) certifies their clients, forces them to provide
> unsubscription options in their advertising messages, etc. If
> there wasnt any unsubscribe option then contact their support/abuse team.
> They list many import
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 00:23 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 24-Nov-2009, at 15:23, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> > From: LuKreme
> >> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> >
> >>> Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
> >
> >> We've been through this before. On m
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 17:34 +, Ned Slider wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> R-Elists wrote:
> >>>
> >>> on a much more important note, can those on the list that have a good
> >>> handle
> >>> on better filtering spam and/or UCE from Const
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch a
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 19:20 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On ons 25 nov 2009 18:55:11 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Any more ranges most welcome :-)
>
> iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>
Very good. That was nearly funny :-) Why don't
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
> > iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>
> Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
>
> Alex
NO NO NO NO NO!
Drop has the effect of tarpitting them :-) As the Supremes sang;
"Set me free why don't you baby? You just k
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 08:57 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
> >> > iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
> >>
> >> Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfactio
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:27 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 26.11.09 17:12, Allen Chen wrote:
> > I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year.
> > It's still running and filtering spam without any problems.
> > But I think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4.
> > So I
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
> terminology.
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*. I pointed out that
RBL is trademark just to
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:17 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
> > Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
>
> priceless reply-to
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
> the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
>
> http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
>
> Even after learning they still only score 3.6
>
> Anything
Matus forgot to include this one he sent to me personally:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
> > terminology.
On 27.11.09 15:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Matus, why are you
; >
> > > http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
> > >
> > > Even after learning they still only score 3.6
> > >
> > > Anything I can do?
>
> On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > I got '5' for it, at a push...
> >
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> it's funny that you send me private copies for mail that DOES belong to
> the list, but you refuse private mail even if it's does NOT belong here.
>
Well, I figured if you wanted to go on being an ignorant asshole and
keep doing i
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > > I got '5' for it, at a push...
> > > >
> > > > X-Spam-Report:
> > > > * 5.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_FR Rel
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:14 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > > On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > The last time I checked no two email systems, be they home, soho or
> > enterprise, had to be the same. Unless, of course, you are now declari
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:08 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
> PS. If I were a spammer I would be laughing my ass off at this waste of
> time. Every effort spent on fighting each other is less spent on them.
Actually, it's reasonable to argue that you are worse - you've just
contributed to an argum
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:06 -0500, Matt Garretson wrote:
> Chris Owen wrote:
> > Why anyone replies to this guy about anything is beyond me.
> > Adding him to a kill file doesn't do much good when you still
> > see the other half of the "argument".
>
>
> +1
>
> If you must feed the trolls, ple
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:19 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
>
> > Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
> >
> > If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
> > concept...
> > ...Maybe it would be a better idea to
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:06 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:38 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > So please, spare me the sob story about what a wonderful idea HABEAS is.
> > Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.
>
> Who's sobbing?
This is top of my list..
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Constant-Contact-Guide-email-Marketing/dp/0470503416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259777127&sr=8-1
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:23 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:59 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > As for
> > insulting you - grow up. You work in the business of sending unwanted
> > junk email.
>
> You haven't done any research at all,
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 00:18 -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "LuKreme"
> Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/03 20:55
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:43, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" > > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:23 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
>
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 04:16 -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "Yet Another Ninja"
> Sent: Friday, 2009/December/04 02:28
>
>
> > On 12/4/2009 10:57 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > FINAL
> >> This is not a social club, it's a question and
101 - 200 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
