Am 2008-05-23 11:18:57, schrieb Robin Bowes:
Marc Perkel wrote:
First to do what I'm doing you have to be using EXIM. If you aren't
running exim then you just can't do it. In fact, with all due respect, I
can't see how anyone can do spam filtering and not use exim as their MTA.
qpsmtpd
Jo Rhett wrote:
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.
Different people interpret when a delivery attempt succeeds differently.
Marc Perkel 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
Agreed. Qmail should die!
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,
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:
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.
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 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
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!
Kevin W. Gagel writes:
- Original Message -
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
IOn Wed, 2008-05-07 at 08:50 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
numbered fake MX record.
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 09:33 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
Kevin W. Gagel writes:
- Original Message -
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual
ram wrote:
IOn Wed, 2008-05-07 at 08:50 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
numbered
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
To participate all you have to do is set your highest numbered MX to
point to:
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com
Several people have asked me how I'm doing this and can they have my
code to do it themselves. My situation is unique enough that it just
won't
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
To participate all you have to do is set your highest numbered MX to
point to:
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com
Several people have asked me how I'm doing this and can they have my
code to do it themselves. My situation is unique
Well now, if a spambot actually does start recognizing and avoiding his system,
doesn't that mean he wins and the spammer loses?
John Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/08/08 12:11 PM
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
To participate all you have to do is set your highest numbered MX to
Kevin Parris wrote:
Well now, if a spambot actually does start recognizing and avoiding his system,
doesn't that mean he wins and the spammer loses?
I would say YES!
You should make an effort to clean it up so that others *can* install it as a
standalone daemon, as I suggested. Why?
: donderdag 8 mei 2008 19:07
To: Kevin Parris
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Experimental - use my server for your high fake MX record
Kevin Parris wrote:
Well now, if a spambot actually does start recognizing and avoiding his system,
doesn't that mean he wins and the spammer loses
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is
free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record. Here's how you would configure your
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
numbered fake MX record. Here's how you would configure your
- Original Message -
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam and
at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
numbered fake MX record. Here's
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record. Here's how you would
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record.
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This is
free
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
If you just want IPs, maybe instead of running an SMTP service that
450s, you would want to use a packet filter like iptables instead. You
could get the IPs simply by what packets you saw come in to port 25 and
noone would have to worry you were
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:44 PM, John Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
If you just want IPs, maybe instead of running an SMTP service that 450s,
you would want to use a packet filter like iptables instead. You could get
the IPs simply by what packets
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:44 PM, John Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Mark is trying to collect data on how the remote MTA behaves when
presented with a 451 tmpfail result. A firewall rule can't do that.
From his message: I'm not interested in the
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:44 PM, John Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Mark is trying to collect data on how the remote MTA behaves when
presented with a 451 tmpfail result. A firewall rule can't do that.
From his message: I'm not
30 matches
Mail list logo
