Jeremy Fairbrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
Can the tflags multiple setting be used with mimeheader rules? Or only with
header, body, rawbody, uri, and full tests?
Also, where can I find some further info on how tflags multiple should be used - perhaps
Now google docs abuse spam.
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting system
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
https://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/spamgd.txt
Thanks
Ram
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 12:12:11 ram wrote:
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting s ystem
this is new. spammers are fast :(
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 5:12 am, ram wrote:
Now google docs abuse spam.
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting system
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
Chris schrieb:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 5:12 am, ram wrote:
Now google docs abuse spam.
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting system
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
ram wrote:
Now google docs abuse spam.
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting system
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
https://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/spamgd.txt
Thanks
Ram
I am slow.
Hi!
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it disable
it, at least temporarily.
We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night. The
test point was invalid. (2.0.0.127).
But i could not reach the site either so...
Most likely Ian will respond to
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night.
The test point was invalid. (2.0.0.127).
But i could not reach the site either so...
Most
I chased this around for a while and when I finally determined the
cause, I figured I should post something so that future searchers will
find it.
I have been happily running 3.2.3-0.volatile1 (Debian) for months. Today
I woke up to a lot of Spam in my INBOX, and spamassassin down. It seems
to
mouss writes:
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night.
The test point was invalid. (2.0.0.127).
But i could not reach
Hello,
I am ongoing to install a new server for (currently) 43 users with
apache2, postgresql 8.2, courier, clamav-ng and spamassassin.
Since the resources are very limited, the inbound MTA check only
zen.spamhaus.org and then let the $USER choose what to do. Because an
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Because an
experience from last Friday where I have hit the limits of my hosting
providers mailserver (over 4000 messages stuck in the queue) I lock
already the ~/.promailrc to let only one message after one processing
per $USER.
You are serializing now?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 13:48, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Hi Chris, why not blocking such mails before
getting them to spamassassin
use clamv-milter at income smtp level with
http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/ sigs
its not as virus, its spam detected in clamav, virus do something !
Benny
On May 21, 2008, at 10:01 AM, mouss wrote:
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
I asked about this on the spamtools list on the 12th to deafening
silence.
On that day, if you were to look at their status page,
May I suggest that you redo your research? BarricadeMX has no feature
at all that even attempts to address the issue MailChannels is
addressing, ie slowing down the TCP channel.
On May 20, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of
give longer greylist times will do without marketing :-)
It will slow down real user's mail a lot too.
On May 20, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
real mail servers is
1: known
2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to
On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
mouss, please do a little research
I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get
corrected. so please share your knowledge.
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to things
which are not
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this point,
because the botnets know to retry now.
Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even if
all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_ intent of
On May 20, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
1. How does AWL deal with forgery (other than by saving a /16 of the
source IP)
No other way. What's wrong with saving a /16? In my experience it's
worked pretty well for the past few years...
Seems to. I can logically think of ways it
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night.
The test point was invalid.
Jo Rhett wrote:
Matt, how can I possibly get you to move past this unfounded
assumption that my trust path is broken and focus on the real
problem? The trust path is not broken, it's just fine.
On May 20, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Ok, then the AWL code is *SEVERELY* bugged.
On May 21, 2008, at 11:37 AM, John Hardin wrote:
Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even
if all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_
intent of greylisting...
The negative effects of greylisting outweight the positive. As a
provider who
On Wed, 21 May 2008 at 14:26 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On May 21, 2008, at 10:01 AM, mouss wrote:
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it disable
it, at least temporarily.
I asked about this on the spamtools list on the 12th to deafening
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy,
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!) features
MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure it is I who has to
do the researching?
Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having to slow
down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing
On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!)
features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure
it is I who has to do the researching?
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions
D Hill wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 at 14:26 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On May 21, 2008, at 10:01 AM, mouss wrote:
dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
disable it, at least temporarily.
I asked about this on the spamtools list on the 12th to
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here
to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
everyone read the information available.
http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!)
features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure
it is I who has to do the researching?
I read every document on their website, and saw
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
mouss, please do a little research
I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get corrected.
so please share your knowledge.
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to things
which
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
start by updating the RFCs.
mouss wrote:
[snip]
I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me
to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP
-
sessions. I can't find it.
and this is the guy who is trying to teach me research?
- try searching
mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
start by updating the RFCs.
[quote]
Does it actually read the files in the update channel dirs? Something
like this, below the point where the debugging output has been snipped.
[/quote]
Yes I think it does - the relevant output is below.
[5153] dbg: config: fixed relative path:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 10:01 +1200, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
I run sa-update from the crontab daily which I believe should update the
rules. (i'm relatively new to this so could have it completely wrong)
The command I use in crontab is
00 01 * * * sa-update
René Berber wrote:
[snip]
Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX,
No problem, search for Slow Replies in the 2.0 release notes.
you answer with more of your dumb messages.
Can we kill this thread now?
Marc Perkel wrote:
mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
start by
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:57:49AM +1200, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
Any reason for the non-default --allowplugins?
One of the channels - Open Protect required it
If you use SA versions 3.2.0 or above, use the following command:
*sa-update --allowplugins --gpgkey
On May 21, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
feature. I can't research it further without getting the product
here
to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
everyone read the
On May 21, 2008, at 1:19 PM, mouss wrote:
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to
things which are not similar, then accusing them of doing no
research.
you are confusing me with someone else. I never accused anyone of
doing no research.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:57:49AM +1200, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
Any reason for the non-default --allowplugins?
One of the channels - Open Protect required it
If you use SA versions 3.2.0 or above, use the following command:
*sa-update --allowplugins
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
There's nothing on that site. It's
On May 21, 2008, at 3:18 PM, mouss wrote:
Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX,
No problem, search for Slow Replies in the 2.0 release notes.
And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
On May 21, 2008, at 1:44 PM, mouss wrote:
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
start by updating the RFCs.
The RFCs are, and have always been clear on how MX records are
supposed to be used.
Are you just a nonsense machine? The SA list's personal eliza run
through the borker?
--
Jo
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
Your insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with
it.
...I thought you plonk'd him? :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
Agreed. Qmail should die!
On 19 May 2008, Theo Van Dinter said:
[Don talking about `asterisks']
What are you talking about?
I *think* he's talking about default score thresholds.
--
`If you are having a ua luea luea le ua le kind of day, I can only
assume that you are doing no work due [to] incapacitating nausea
On 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett stated:
On May 20, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
2. How can I easily see the AWL database for a given destination
address?
tools/check_whitelist
Where can I find this? It's not in the Mail-SpamAssassin tarfile...
It's in SVN.
--
`If you are having a ua
From: mouss
http://www.dnsbl.com/
I have never paid attention to it so... questions..
Was dsbl.org widely used?
In general, is it considered a major and necessary dnsbl tool for the war
against spam?
Does anyone have any idea how much sustained bandwidth in and out that it
took to run
50 matches
Mail list logo
