On 25.02.10 15:22, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to find a way to get people to get their FCrDNS correct. The
way I see it if they can't get RDNS correct they aren't going to get
SPF correct. Unfortunately I get a lot of ham from IPs with no RDNS.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
fcrdns
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.02.10 15:22, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to find a way to get people to get their FCrDNS correct. The
way I see it if they can't get RDNS correct they aren't going to get
SPF correct. Unfortunately I get a lot of ham from IPs with no RDNS.
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org writes:
On Thu 25 Feb 2010 10:31:16 PM CET, Kai Schaetzl wrote
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam tool. Full
stop.
oh so what is spf then ?
It is an anti-forgery tool.
On Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:15:58 PM CET, Marc Perkel wrote
but you constantly refuse to use SPF the same way...
Yep - fcrdns doesn't break email forwarding.
spf works as designed, but it does not help domain owners to make the
right spf record on dns to support forwarding if that is wanted
one
On Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:02:15 PM CET, Graham Murray wrote
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org writes:
On Thu 25 Feb 2010 10:31:16 PM CET, Kai Schaetzl wrote
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam tool. Full
stop.
oh so what is spf then ?
It is an anti-forgery tool.
so i can
End of Thread.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
On 02/27, Henrik K wrote:
Are you aware of the ruleqa app?
I had looked at it several times, but apparently never scrolled all the way
to the bottom where the useful information is.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?rule=%2F%28HOST%7CFROM%29_HOTMAIL
When the ratio is about fifty-fifty, it's
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:15:58 PM CET, Marc Perkel wrote
but you constantly refuse to use SPF the same way...
Yep - fcrdns doesn't break email forwarding.
spf works as designed, but it does not help domain owners to make the
right spf record on dns to support forwarding
Was my reply 3 hours ago to the very same post that hard to understand?
Take it somewhere else.
End of Thread.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if
At 06:02 AM 2/27/2010, you wrote:
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org
writes:
On Thu 25 Feb 2010 10:31:16 PM CET, Kai Schaetzl wrote
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam
tool. Full
stop.
oh so what is spf then ?
It is an anti-forgery tool.
SPF as defined in RFC
4408, is
On Sat 27 Feb 2010 06:13:58 PM CET, Marc Perkel wrote
You're making the assumption that the person who has the recipient
domain has any control over the SPF rules. What often happens is
that one domain is on a server with 1000 other domains and the
hosting compant controls the rules.
Do you guys even read the thread you're contributing to?
This thread has passed its expiration date long ago. Stop beating a dead
horse. One last time: End. Of. Thread.
I'll personally chastise any offenders, and reserve the right to turn on
moderation or unsubscribe.
You want the police when
On 26/02/2010 7:13 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Folks,
I'm getting a parse error when I run sa-update to pick up the latest
ruleset (3.3? from updates.spamassassin.org.
Are you still having this issue?
$ sa-update --allowplugins --nogpg --channel updates.spamassassin.org
Wow. That's an
exactly new (we've been operating since Feb 2008).
What's new is the free part of it.
You can check the current results here (last two weeks):
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100220-r912093-n/%2FRCVD
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100227-r916929-n/%2FRCVD
The relevant rule name
in the SpamAssassin weekly mass
checks and isn't exactly new (we've been operating since Feb 2008). What's new is the
free part of it.
You can check the current results here (last two weeks):
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100220-r912093-n/%2FRCVD
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100227-r916929-n
-r912093-n/%2FRCVD
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100227-r916929-n/%2FRCVD
The relevant rule name is T_RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL (aggregation of all
bad reputation IP addresses). Note that both the rule name and the DNS
zone in use will change to a dedicated zone (which is already up and
running
check the current results here (last two weeks):
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100220-r912093-n/%2FRCVD
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100227-r916929-n/%2FRCVD
The relevant rule name is T_RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL (aggregation of all
bad reputation IP addresses). Note that both the rule name
Hi Bill,
- Bill Landry b...@inetmsg.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 6:42 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
I don't see where you have defined any of these entries that
you're
using in your meta rules:
RCVD_IN_ANBREP_L5
RCVD_IN_ANBREP_L4
RCVD_IN_ANBREP_L3
RCVD_IN_ANBREP_Z
Did you intend
OK, it's late and I'm tired, and this will probably
end up being stupid regex issue, but:
why does...
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*style/si match
and:
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*\style\/si not match?
given a message body:
htmlhead
...
/headbody
...
style
garbage...
/style
...
/body
19 matches
Mail list logo
