* Benny Pedersen [25/11/2011 17:54] :
maillists often not remove originating sender addr, if thay did how
can i get all that private emails orinating from maillists ?
I believe that rh is suggesting not to put email adresses in the body of
your mail if you're replying to a mailing-list.
Most
ynnn
my care factor about what some spammy troll like yourself has to say,
is, well... in the words of Elton John - too low for zero
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 00:25 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
2011/11/24 Noel Butler
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:25:59 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
0.000,000,01% is 1 FP over 10,000,000,000 !!
I'm not scared about your email volume...I doubt about your FP
ratio !!!
I agree. I don't believe that FP ratio either.
Regards,
David.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have
had 0.0001% of FP's in that, which is really good.
At 1.7 million email a day that's at very most
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:43:04 +
RW wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we
have had 0.0001% of FP's in that, which is really
Whereas my concerns for your mathematical nonsense is zip, nada, zero, nothing,
goawayyoubothermechild.
Seriously, your claim is patent nonsense yet you expect people to listen to
you. That IS rather childish behavior, you know. You can't have been running
anti-spam tools long enough to reach
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 16:48 +, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:43:04 +
RW wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we
your opinion means less than that to me, since for some unknown reason,
for some time you have taken an extreme hatred of me, but hey what ever
floats your boat I dont know you so I dont give a fuck about your
reasons or your rants.
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:05 -0800, jdow wrote:
Whereas my
2011/11/24 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very little in
them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have had 0.0001%
of FP's in that, which is really good.
0.0001% is 1 FP over 10.000.000.000 !! 1 over 10
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 12:21 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
2011/11/24 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very little in
them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have had 0.0001%
of FP's in that, which is
2011/11/24 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very little
in
them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have had
0.0001%
of FP's in that, which is really good.
0.0001% is 1 FP over 10.000.000.000 !! 1
Christian,
when you reply to people, dont put their email address in the post.
please stop that.
again, if you would read the posts slowly and correctly, i was not attacking
you or your ideas.
see the word not there...
this is a discussion list, not a discrediting list.
in terms of negation,
On Mit, 2011-11-23 at 14:55 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
[]
Flaws ?
False positivesyes, ONLY the first time for each sender! just
answer your good mails and they´ll become ham next time. Mails not
answered (spam) remains as spam next and next and next !
1) That might look
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:03:20 -0800, R - elists wrote:
when you reply to people, dont put their email address in the post.
maillists often not remove originating sender addr, if thay did how can
i get all that private emails orinating from maillists ?
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:55 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
For this we need a modified version of SA autowhitelist not based on
scores but on trusted or answered emails !
This can work well, BUT:
- you need to maintain a database containing every address
you ever received mail from and
Sorry to follow up on myself.
I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders. We
also have a whitelist-people-I-write-to mechanism, so I guess we
anticipated the OP's new paradigm by a few years.
I estimate
On 11/24/11 3:16 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
- you need to maintain a database containing every address
you ever received mail from and have sent mail to. All addresses
must be recorded as you receive mail from them and updated to record
when you send mail to them. You could delete
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, spamassas...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
In-Reply-To header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
response to a message that I sent
what about if your message was stored in a folder of your
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Greylists do great job stoping robots but there are spammers with well
configured MTAs who tries and tries and tries and bypass greylists.
Since the frequency of users checking quarantine has also been mentioned:
We've been running spamassassin
So you're suggesting that users review 2700-3000 spam messages messages/day
(depending on how many were already whitelisted) to look for some of those
300?
may be you are thinking about that volume per user, not the case!
I have 200-300 users so...1 over 10 ham/spam per user!
2011/11/24 David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com:
Sorry to follow up on myself.
I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders. We
also have a whitelist-people-I-write-to mechanism, so I guess we
On 24/11/11 13:18, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
In-Reply-To header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
response to a message that I sent
what about if your message was stored in a folder of your correspondent,
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:07:42 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to follow up on myself.
I should mention that our product can operate in a mode whereby it
holds all mail in the quarantine except from whitelisted senders.
We also have a
On 11/24/11 8:18 AM, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, spamassas...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those Message-Id's in the
In-Reply-To header, it bypasses the spam filtering because it is a
response to a message that I sent
again, sounds
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
* a lot of people on this list do not tell their users that antispam
systems can fail and they can lose
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
the world is full of idiots, including me, thats what you say ?
2011/11/24 Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
the world is full of idiots, including me, thats what you say ?
No. I do not treat any people by idiot !
I said what i ve said ! The idea
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:00:10 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
I said what i ve said ! The idea could be good, bad, not so bad,
idiot...but more serious things came to light in the list !
in general, general rules is not usefull in anyway, in danish wording:
morale er godt, dobbelt morale er
On 2011-11-24 18:36, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
* a lot of people on this list do not tell their users
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:36:53 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
Spammers are not beating us. For the most part, anti-spam
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 22:36 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:58:55 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 22:36 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
pardon me for my ignorance, yet if you think about it, the OP's idea is why
some royalty had food and drink tester / tasters centuries ago
assume all food and drink is poisoned
problem is, if the poison wasnt fast acting, the royalty would ingest it and
die anyways.
eh?
not or negating
pardon me for my ignorance, yet if you think about it, the OP's idea is why
some royalty had food and drink tester / tasters centuries ago
assume all food and drink is poisoned
problem is, if the poison wasnt fast acting, the royalty would ingest it and
die anyways.
with your logic why
christian
i wasnt picking on you or your ideas
locks are not a good anology unless you unplug or close port 25
those were mentioned on the list
you are possibly on to some things, yet part of what you are on to is
already late to the table
i think you are realistically confused about truly
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:56:38 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
with your logic why do you have door locks in your house?
1) What I'm protecting [my family and my posessions] is a lot more valuable
to me than a few seconds wasted by a spam that slips through.
2) I
On Thursday, 24 November 2011, Christian Grunfeld
christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
what I can summarize reading past 40 emails is:
* a lot of people on this list would never change their minds. That is
why spammers beat usthey change their minds in all possible ways !
* a lot of
On 11/24/11 3:30 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote
Rfc 5321 says I can discard if I have high confidence it's rubbish !
--
Martin
I wonder what the rfc's say about helo line not matching dns:
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:31:59 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
I wonder what the rfc's say about helo line not matching dns:
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org
[140.211.11.3])
RFC 5321 strongly hints that that is no reason to reject mail.
An SMTP
2011/11/24 R - elists list...@abbacomm.net:
i think you are realistically confused about truly negating something
english is not your native language is it?
No, it is not ! I am not as good in english as you but I am very good
with maths and logic!
(I want someone jumps over R-elists who tried
I messed up with english :p
direct and contrapositive and I miss the negation af all
contrapositive is negation and switch the hypothesis and the conclusion
2011/11/24 Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com:
2011/11/24 R - elists list...@abbacomm.net:
i think you are realistically
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 19:51 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
(I want someone jumps over R-elists who tried to discredited me based
on a language barrier like Karsten Bräckelmann jumped over me before!)
You are discrediting yourself, dude.
I slapped you on the wrist for being prejudiced,
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 15:30 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
*check spam folder always
Well, if I have to do *that*, I might as well not do any filtering at all.
The whole purpose of anti-spam software is to shield me from spam.
Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folder, dont
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 15:04 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
How is it less effort to be forced to check every incoming email than to
allow your computer to do some or most of that work? You are not making
any sense.
Yes it does, if he's actually a spammer, he seems to arguing all users
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 20:30 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
* a lot of people on this list are violating RFCs doing the previous
thing !
C
Rfc 5321 says I can discard if I have high confidence it's rubbish !
--
Martin
Indeed, that RFC was introduced a few years back, late 08
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:55:46 -0300
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Nowdays its easier to invert the logic!
*mark all incomings as spam the first time
*check spam folder always
*mark as hamor (here is the relationship with the first question)
...just answer emails to the people you allways
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:51:58 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Maths language is unique so if someone of you dont agree with me in
what follows I can give you lectures out of the list.
Converting real-world problems to purely mathematical expressions is
not always
On 11/24/2011 6:04 AM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
So you're suggesting that users review 2700-3000 spam messages messages/day
(depending on how many were already whitelisted) to look for some of those
300?
may be you are thinking about that volume per user, not the case!
I have 200-300 users
On 11/23/2011 12:55 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Hi,
I have an idea to discuss here with experts !
What is the main MAIN difference between spam and ham ?
...
...
Answer: spam is one way ticket and ham is 99.99% round trip !
(legit notifications can be one way ticket but you can mark them as
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:55:46 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
So the idea is...in this days where the ratio of spam/ham is about 80%
(put the ratio you want but be sure it is high enough) lets start with
marking all incomings as spam !
The cure is worse than the
On 11/23/11 6:55 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Hi,
I have an idea to discuss here with experts !
What is the main MAIN difference between spam and ham ?
...
...
Answer: spam is one way ticket and ham is 99.99% round trip !
What research can you cite for these figures? I beg to differ. Think
*check spam folder always
Well, if I have to do *that*, I might as well not do any filtering at all.
The whole purpose of anti-spam software is to shield me from spam.
Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folder, dont you?
Do you advise your people not to check spam folders? Are you 100%
If your assumption was true, there was no spam today. If nobody would ever
answer to spam messages, there was no reason for spammers to keep spamming.
let people who wants spam to answer spam ! if you dont want spam dont
reply. Easy !
There are a lot of people who wants to sell viagra and send
An interesting idea. Sort of a challenge and response with the onus
on the recipient. But I think this is handled by auto whitelist which
SpamAssassin was one of the first to implement.
Regards,
KAM
I don't think AWL does with the original poster is describing, but
implementation
If your assumption was true, there was no spam today. If nobody would ever
answer to spam messages, there was no reason for spammers to keep spamming.
your assumption is not correct ! Spammers are not there because all
the people answer them ! They are there and send HUGE volumes of mails
On 23/11/11 17:55, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
What do I mean? you never never answer (or it is really strange) a
spam message.
On my personal email system, my MSA records Message-Id's of outgoing
mail into a database. If a message comes in to my MTA with one of those
Message-Id's in the
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:30:08 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if I have to do *that*, I might as well not do any filtering
at all. The whole purpose of anti-spam software is to shield me
from spam.
Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folder, dont
I don't think AWL does with the original poster is describing, but
implementation would be trivial in the MTA without spamassassin involved at
all.
If the user expects to receive mail from a limited number of people like
only their relatives (m...@myhome.com) then this actually might make
Many people have spent many nights lying awake trying to figure out what
to do about spam. The the extent that when a person believes they have
come up with an idea that is both new and useful, they are usually wrong.
This results in some hostile attitudes toward new ideas - I have certainly
felt
Undoubtedly it is *easier*, just as I can easily eliminate all my spam
by unplugging the ethernet cable. Just keep in mind this method would
only be useful for people who already know who they want to talk to.
The idea is as simple as: past days was easier to blacklist...nowdays
is easier
Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folder, dont you?
Do you advise your people not to check spam folders? Are you 100% sure
that machines can sort 100% efectively what is spam and what is not?
SpamAssassin, in the installations I maintain, is accurate *enough*
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:55:46PM -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
So the idea is...in this days where the ratio of spam/ham is about 80%
(put the ratio you want but be sure it is high enough) lets start with
marking all incomings as spam !
Maybe you are trolling but whatever..
85% of
A concept of 'ongoing conversation' or 'replied to' is implemented as
a 'pen pals' feature in amavisd, when it is used in place of spamd
to call SpamAssassin. The idea is to automatically contribute some negative
spam score points to ongoing conversations - based on envelope sender
and recipients,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
If your assumption was true, there was no spam today. If nobody would ever
answer to spam messages, there was no reason for spammers to keep spamming.
let people who wants spam to answer spam ! if you dont want spam dont
reply. Easy !
There are a
Undoubtedly it is *easier*, just as I can easily eliminate all my spam by
unplugging the ethernet cable. Just keep in mind this method would only be
useful for people who already know who they want to talk to.
And that is the big % of what people do or want to do ! most people
wants to
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:16:06 +0100
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
A concept of 'ongoing conversation' or 'replied to' is implemented as
a 'pen pals' feature in amavisd,
Our (commercial) software has a similar feature, not quite as fancy as
amavisd's, but still pretty useful.
To
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:22:38 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Do not assume by default that people want spam !
But your proposal *ensures* that people will have to wade through
huge quantities of spam to pull out the non-spam they want. That's
going backwards.
2011/11/23 Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si:
A concept of 'ongoing conversation' or 'replied to' is implemented as
a 'pen pals' feature in amavisd, when it is used in place of spamd
to call SpamAssassin. The idea is to automatically contribute some negative
spam score points to ongoing
On 11/23/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Undoubtedly it is *easier*, just as I can easily eliminate all my spam by
unplugging the ethernet cable. Just keep in mind this method would only be
useful for people who already know who they want to talk to.
And that is the big % of what
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:05:40 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
An interesting idea. Sort of a challenge and response with the onus
on the recipient. But I think this is handled by auto whitelist
which
SpamAssassin was one of the first to implement.
SAGREY plugin is wonderfull with /32 in AWL
Our (commercial) software has a similar feature, not quite as fancy as
amavisd's, but still pretty useful.
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
No offence but ...now I understand why a simple solution makes no
sense to you ! You need a big thing wich wastes a lot
2011/11/23 Henrik K h...@hege.li:
85% of incoming is extremely simple to block with MTA rules (zen, helo,
dynamic etc). And no FPs to mention. You don't need to count this crap in
anything.
completely agree on that! I check helo, sender domains, IP - names
maps and greylists
12% of
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
My company is, yes.
No offence but ...now I understand why a simple solution makes no
sense to you ! You need a big thing wich wastes a
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
No offence but ...now I understand why a simple solution makes no
sense to you ! You need a big thing
On 11/23/2011 4:56 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
I still have much more spam than ham after all first checks.
I have something like 3 total per day. 3000 bypass first level
tests and of those 3000, 300 are ham.
Define bypass first level? Are you suggesting that for every 1 ham you
On 11/23/2011 4:41 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Our (commercial) software has a similar feature, not quite as fancy as
amavisd's, but still pretty useful.
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
No offence but ...now I understand why a simple solution makes no
sense
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:30:19 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Go for it, Christian. Prove us all wrong, and finally develop the
long
awaited FUSSP.
(No, I am in no way affiliated with Roaring Penguin. I am a SA dev.)
Fuck, now I did reply to this thread. I tried hard not to. I tried...
+2
Define bypass first level? Are you suggesting that for every 1 ham you
deliver, you deliver 10 spams into user's mailboxes? Or do you do further
filtering?
I defined it in the part you did not quote!
First level, MTA level: check helo, sender domain, IP - name maps
and also greylists !
These
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:06 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:41:43 -0300 Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Many things become clear to me now ! Are you an antispam vendor?
No offence but ...now I understand why a simple
On 11/23/2011 7:01 PM, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
Define bypass first level? Are you suggesting that for every 1 ham you
deliver, you deliver 10 spams into user's mailboxes? Or do you do further
filtering?
I defined it in the part you did not quote!
First level, MTA level: check helo, sender
80 matches
Mail list logo
