I know this is off-topic, but I've attempted numerous times to put our
server behind a firewall, but upon doing so, the queue grows to an enormous
proportion and the only way to clear it is to remove it from behind the
firewall.
Besides the normal ports 25, 110 and 80 (for web mail), do I also
Jeff Maze - Hostmaster wrote:
I know this is off-topic, but I've attempted numerous times to put our
server behind a firewall, but upon doing so, the queue grows to an enormous
proportion and the only way to clear it is to remove it from behind the
firewall.
Some firewalls apply the same
At 07:42 AM 10/6/2003, Jeff Maze - Hostmaster wrote:
I know this is off-topic, but I've attempted numerous times to put our
server behind a firewall, but upon doing so, the queue grows to an enormous
proportion and the only way to clear it is to remove it from behind the
firewall.
Besides the
Besides the normal ports 25, 110 and 80 (for web mail), do I also have to
keep 1024-65525 open as well for iMail to work properly?
No -- while the ports 1024-65535 are used on the client side, the firewall
only cares about the server side ports (since almost all client side ports
will be in the
Good morning all.
I blocked weight 10 and found it blocking too many legitimate mail. I
went back to Warn for weight 10 and starting getting more spam. Below
is the headers from a spam message that is failing the weight 10 test.
It is spam and I want to find another way to block mail like this.
I have used spamchk (an add on for declude) www.spamchk.com and its pretty
good at catching such emails, as long as the filters are configured
correctly.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges, Samantha
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:15
I guess I might add more weight to SAL, maybe reduce the negative weight of
IPNOTINMX to start.
I have some of the following in a filter file to add little weight, I don't
know if it is a great idea but it usually helps.
HEADERS 0 CONTAIN Bargains.net
HEADERS 0 CONTAIN Bargain.net
HEADERS 0
Hello Samantha.
While the default WEIGHT10 and WEIGHT20 settings are good starting points, I
firmly believe that more granular control is needed.
This is accomplished using the weight range settings.
Example, here is my configuration:
WEIGHT9 IGNORE
WEIGHTRANGE10-14IGNORE
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37] by
mail.prudentialrand.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.15) id A3811E61010A; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:25:05 -0400
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id e.48.230ffa47 (30960)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Ok, Joshie, I'll bite. You received a NXDOMAIN response when querying for a
.com TLD, which means...
Verisign is no longer hijacking, I mean wildcarding, all non-existent .com
and .net domains to 64.94.110.11
The VERISCAM test is now useless.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Levitsky
What is up with this? I just sent a test message to myself from AOL and I
got the same thing SPAMCOP BLOCKED, as if I didn't have enough trouble
getting AOL e-mail through, between the noabuse, no postmaster and
occasional BASE64 encoding. IS there a test that can give aol address a
nice
Don't worry, with the politics of the situation and the money to be
made, it will return. Just wait.
Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
What is your NOLEGITCONTENT test?
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: NOABUSE, NOPOSTMASTER, IPNOTINMX, NOLEGITCONTENT,
FILTER, WEIGHT10 [10]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe,
in the global config file:
NOLEGITCONTENT nolegitcontent x x 0 -4
If you're asking me what it does I can only paraphrase Scott. It looks for
things that are uncommon in spam but common in legitimate e-mails so that it
can give it some negative weight.
Marc
-Original
and don't tell me you wouldn't do the same...
That's a curious sentiment to post on an anti-spam list! I'd have
hoped everyone here believes we should be regulated by ethics as well
as statutes. Otherwise, why aren't we spamming for a living?
As the three-way rubber-stamping between DoC,
Frankly, i applaud your sense of duty and moral fortitude and character,
it is very lacking in business today... that is all i was trying to say
, my point was that although it's a sad truth about the world we live in,
and it ain't getting any better most big corporations put their
On Oct 6, 2003, at 2:19 PM, Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Verisign is no longer hijacking, I mean wildcarding, all non-existent
.com
and .net domains to 64.94.110.11
The VERISCAM test is now useless.
Correct about the VERISCAM test, but NXDOMAIN is a good thing. It's how
the Internet is supposed to
most big corporations put their bottomline before anything... case
in point, Worldcom , Enron etc. etc. to name a few get my drift?
Those are cases of high-dollar abuse, and of course there are
thousands of smaller-time abuses going on all the time. My
disagreement
18 matches
Mail list logo
