Title: #-coded spam
hi,
during the last 2 days i found several spams where to whole body was coded in ASCII numbers (#followed by the ascii number of the letter like #32 for )
right now i filter for some strings like #111;#114;#100;#101;#114;#32 (means order ).
does jm decodes this
Isn't that bounceonlyifyoumust? I changed my to bounceifyoumust and the
log showed it as not an action.
BTW, I only bounce from a list of people who insist on sending new
real-estate information to all of our offices after we have repeatedly asked
them to stop. Those and a newsletter from
Isn't that bounceonlyifyoumust? I changed my to bounceifyoumust and the
log showed it as not an action.
Yes, it is BOUNCEONLYIFYOUMUST.
BTW, I only bounce from a list of people who insist on sending new
real-estate information to all of our offices after we have repeatedly asked
them to stop.
Hello, All,
If I create a filter file that contains phrases, for example...
BODY 1CONTAINSshores of Nigeria
BODY 1CONTAINSyour utmost confidentiality
and DJM sees a message that has the words...
we are located on the shores of Nigeria. We need your utmost
confidentiality
If I create a filter file that contains phrases, for example...
BODY 1CONTAINSshores of Nigeria
BODY 1CONTAINSyour utmost confidentiality
and DJM sees a message that has the words...
we are located on the shores of Nigeria. We need your utmost
confidentiality
does 1 point
AOL has signed on to SPF, and as a result I have seen a huge jump in the
pass/fail entries in my spf.log today associated with aol.com addresses.
Also, Postfix will be adding support for SPF in its soon to be released 2.1
version. These kind of things will certainly accelerate SPF adoption.
Bill
Yes, you are correct it is bounceonlyifyoumust. I accidentally omitted
the only part of it.
Darrel
marc catuogno writes:
Isn't that bounceonlyifyoumust? I changed my to bounceifyoumust and the
log showed it as not an action.
BTW, I only bounce from a list of people who insist on sending
This has been brought up, but I am going to ask again.
Is it possible to configure the PREWHITELIST options to allow certain tests
to run? Although I know of only one external test at this time that is
adversely affected by PREWHITELIST ON, I am sure there will be others. This
would allow the
Consider this to be constructive as I'm still on the fence about the
whole thing.
I've been seeing more and more zombie spam that is coming from the
client computer using an address on their ISP, and sent through the
ISP's mail server. I'm not seeing a lot of it, but it is most
definitely
Title: Message
Hi
Scott:
I just went back to
i8. Somewhere between i8 and i12, the handling of aliases
broke.
Situation:
a) User sends a
single email to a single alias:"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
b) The alias
distributes to 12 mailboxes
c) Declude (with
Interim I12) counts it as 12 recipients
Title:
Am I missing something here? Could SPF not only be ill advised, but also
detrimental as a whole? Inquiring minds want to know.
The issue of spam going through large ISP's mailservers could become a big
issue. But the neat thing is that the spammers are really shooting
themselves in their
AOL has signed on to SPF, and as a result I have seen a huge jump in
the pass/fail entries in my spf.log today associated with aol.com
addresses. Also, Postfix will be adding support for SPF in its soon
to be released 2.1 version. These kind of things will certainly
accelerate SPF
Yes SpamChk will decode any quoted printable characters found in HTML-parts
of messages before making keyword checks.
It can also add additional points for certain suspiciuos appearances of
quoted-printable encoded parts.
Markus
From: [EMAIL
I just went back to i8. Somewhere between i8 and i12, the handling of
aliases broke.
Situation:
a) User sends a single email to a single alias:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
b) The alias distributes to 12 mailboxes
c) Declude (with Interim I12) counts it as 12 recipients when
Title: Message
Anybody know where I can get PowerRen 2000 (or
something similar)? I have 500 emails (1000 files) held by HiJack that I
need to release. All the download sites I checked via a Google search show
it as not available. Manual renaming is a serious pain.
Glenn Z.
Sent off list from a server. Do not reply to that message.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn \\ WCNet
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
- Original Message -
From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
The next release of SPAMC32 will instantly pass Declude
variables that the admin selects to SA via a temporary,
easily parseable header that won't appear in the final
delivered message. So get ready!
Sandy,
Sandy, any idea if or when the Cygwin requirement will be removed?
Technically, there is no Cygwin requirement, but there is either a
*nix SPAMD server *or* Cygwin SPAMD requirement. SPAMC32 doesn't care
where SPAMD is running.
That's not to say that I don't encourage and expect
Title: Message
Hi
Scott:
here is the info you
asked. Enclosed is a text file with
- IMail Log (showing
ONE recipient)
- Declude Log
(showing 12 recipients)
- Declude skipping
the whitelisting: "Bypassing whitelisting of E-mail with weight =15 (17) and
at least 4 recipients (12)."
- The
Are you using SWITCHRECIP ON (in the global.cfg file), which would
account for the behavior you are seeing?
-Scott
At 06:41 PM 1/8/2004, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Scott:
here is the info you asked. Enclosed is a text file with
- IMail Log (showing ONE recipient)
-
Comments?
Thoughts?
Good?
Bad?
Yes?
No?
Maybe?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sandy, any idea if or when the Cygwin requirement will be removed?
Technically, there is no Cygwin requirement, but there is either a
*nix SPAMD server *or* Cygwin SPAMD requirement. SPAMC32 doesn't care
where
It certainly is something that would be nice to have. However, I am
guessing that there are other features that would take priority before this
could be done. My recommendation would be not to use the PREWHITELIST
option in this case. Alternatively, it would be possible to have the
SendName
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/08/1849245mode=threadtid=126tid=
128tid=172tid=95
---
[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, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hi,
Yes, SWITCHRECIP=ON.
However, the problem stated with i12, we reproduced the problem at will
until we went back to i8 - and then tne problem went away.
So, something is wrong with SWITCHRECIP=ON and BYPASSMULTIRECP combination
in i12.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
Hi, everyone:
I would like to hear from anybody who has experience with filtering by the
X-Mailer header. In going through my logs, the following look like they are
consistently used for spam.
x-mailer: the bat!
x-mailer: batmail
x-mailer: ximian
x-mailer: foxmail
x-mailer: high life mail
27 matches
Mail list logo
