On 9/3/2014 11:13 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.09.2014 um 19:16 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 1:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 4:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
just get a proper MTA, enable debug logging
and watch the
Am 04.09.2014 um 19:08 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
there are no countermeasures for a spammer against make it
on a RBL or use a zombie on a infected machine and get
blocked by Dialup-RBL's before the first mail or by
get rejected because the dynamic PTR of the infected
zombie
Yes, there
Am 04.09.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Now as for dynamic or dialup RBLs go, UNFORTUNATELY although
many responsible ISPs do insert the word dynamic or dialup
in the PTRs of their dialup or dynamic pools, a great many
still do not. Which means the RBL's that track those need
to try
Heh, yeah I know kids of today are so much worse then 20 years ago :)
But either way, there needs to be drawn a line, so many newbies are
scarred to post there newbie questions on so many lists because of
people like Harry, he's got a long history of moderation and bannings,
but, even I admit
Doesnt take you long does it Harry, you've been on this list a month and
already your abusing and putting ppl down, calling child, telling to
STFU, and some other tripe you levelled at Ted.
Karsten already warned you once, I suggest you remember that.
On 03/09/2014 06:52, Reindl Harald
Am 03.09.2014 um 09:13 schrieb Noel Butler:
Doesnt take you long does it Harry, you've been on this list a
month and already your abusing and putting ppl down, calling
child, telling to STFU, and some other tripe you levelled at Ted.
Karsten already warned you once, I suggest you
On 9/2/2014 1:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 4:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
just get a proper MTA, enable debug logging
and watch the commands / responses between
client and server due a message transmission
and to make it clear for
While I appreciate the support, Noel, I'm not in favor of banning
people from mailing lists for using what they think are insulting terms.
Truth is that Harry's insults are really kind of cute, like the 6 year
old all decked out in a Jedi lightsaber doing battle with Darth Vader.
My 16 year
Am 03.09.2014 um 19:16 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 1:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 4:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
just get a proper MTA, enable debug logging
and watch the commands / responses between
client and
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial providers like Gmail are now
so aggressive that false positives are VERY common on their systems,
this
On 8/31/2014 4:46 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
i think it's impossible to improve that much out-of-the-box because
that would make it to sensitive while the bayes has the ham side of
your communication too for decisions
Google does it. It's not
On 8/31/2014 7:55 AM, Axb wrote:
On 08/31/2014 04:08 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Out of the box the default decision point of 5 is too high anyway.
SA is the framework - you can tune to your need as much as you want.
I think the emphasis on avoiding false positives in the stock
Am 02.09.2014 um 09:57 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial providers like Gmail are now
so aggressive that false
On 8/31/2014 7:35 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 2:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes filter turned on and you take
the time to feed it. And
On 09/02/2014 11:06 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
masscheck runs against your spam and ham. But, masscheck does not know
if what your feeding it is actually ham or spam until you have gone
through your corpora and sorted it - moved the spam to the spam folder
and the ham to the ham folder
On 9/2/2014 2:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 09:57 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial
On 09/02/2014 12:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I'm just saying that out of box it should catch more spam and assume
people will tolerate a few FPs. Because that is what I am seeing people
demand in the real world. This insistence that if SA is responsible
for even ONE FP it's a disaster is a
Am 02.09.2014 um 12:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 7:35 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 2:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes
On 9/2/2014 3:48 AM, Axb wrote:
On 09/02/2014 12:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I'm just saying that out of box it should catch more spam and assume
people will tolerate a few FPs. Because that is what I am seeing people
demand in the real world. This insistence that if SA is responsible
for
Am 02.09.2014 um 12:37 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 2:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and here you prove again that it don't work really out-of-the-box
because if i have to look all day long in my spam folder because
a noticeable part of my legit mail lands there it *do not work*
Are
On 9/2/2014 3:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 12:37 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 2:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and here you prove again that it don't work really out-of-the-box
because if i have to look all day long in my spam folder because
a noticeable part of my
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote on Sun, 31 Aug 2014 07:08:11 -0700:
Out of the box the default decision point of 5 is too high anyway.
No. You can always lower it yourself. With the result of more FPs. If you
or your users can live with that. Fine. Many can't.
I think the emphasis on avoiding false
On 9/2/2014 3:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 12:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 7:35 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 2:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it
Am 02.09.2014 um 13:43 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
as explained above:
* the users don't want to see clear spam at all
* in many countries *you must* reject before-queue
* frankly, where i live for drop a accepted messages
you can go up to 2 years *in jail*
This is really getting silly
Am 02.09.2014 um 13:54 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 02.09.2014 um 13:43 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
as explained above:
* the users don't want to see clear spam at all
* in many countries *you must* reject before-queue
* frankly, where i live for drop a accepted messages
you can go up to
On 02 Sep 2014, at 01:57 , Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial providers like Gmail are now
so
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Plus Google can undeliver a message from your Inbox if you have not
read it yet. Say a spammer slowly sends sneaky spam to 10,000 people.
After the first dozen report the message as spam then the next 9988
have the message undelivered from their
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:24 schrieb Bob Proulx:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Plus Google can undeliver a message from your Inbox if you have not
read it yet. Say a spammer slowly sends sneaky spam to 10,000 people.
After the first dozen report the message as spam then the next 9988
On 9/2/2014 4:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.09.2014 um 13:54 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 02.09.2014 um 13:43 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
as explained above:
* the users don't want to see clear spam at all
* in many countries *you must* reject before-queue
* frankly, where i live for drop
On 9/2/2014 12:19 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 02 Sep 2014, at 01:57 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net
wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:32:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
The point of blocking on DNS or IP based blocking is to issue
that error 5xx because that is the ONLY thing that is going to
cause the spammer to delist.
You are an optimist, aren't you?
Because at that point they are
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 9/2/2014 4:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
just get a proper MTA, enable debug logging
and watch the commands / responses between
client and server due a message transmission
and to make it clear for you:
until after end of data itslef is
Am 02.09.2014 um 22:40 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, that is my experience when I setup test addresses on Gmail and
stick them into spammer unsubscribe links. Lots of spam starts showing
up and over 90% in the junk folder
Bruhaha and that is working out of the box?
your problem is that you
On 9/2/2014 1:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:32:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
The point of blocking on DNS or IP based blocking is to issue
that error 5xx because that is the ONLY thing that is going to
cause the spammer to delist.
You are an
Reindl Harald wrote:
schrieb Bob Proulx:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Plus Google can undeliver a message from your Inbox if you have not
read it yet. Say a spammer slowly sends sneaky spam to 10,000 people.
After the first dozen report the message as spam then the next
Am 03.09.2014 um 00:39 schrieb Bob Proulx:
Reindl Harald wrote:
schrieb Bob Proulx:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Plus Google can undeliver a message from your Inbox if you have not
read it yet. Say a spammer slowly sends sneaky spam to 10,000 people.
After the first dozen
Reindl Harald wrote:
schrieb Bob Proulx:
Being able to undeliver spam after it has been detected later and if
it is as yet unread is none of those bad things. This is a positive
anti-spam feature in the core feature set of an email provider.
honestly i would not want to get a message
Unfortunately if Bayes is not turned on, it does not catch more than
around 60-70% of spam. As a Spamassassin user server admin, I
would
really like to see that improve.
As a matter of interest, how can one turn Bayes on/off?
I take it that the appearance of BAYES_99, etc, in headers
Am 01.09.2014 um 13:19 schrieb Timothy Murphy:
Unfortunately if Bayes is not turned on, it does not catch more than
around 60-70% of spam. As a Spamassassin user server admin, I
would
really like to see that improve.
As a matter of interest, how can one turn Bayes on/off?
I take it
On Monday, September 01, 2014 01:28:24 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
As a matter of interest, how can one turn Bayes on/off?
use_learner 0
use_bayes 0
use_bayes_rules 0
...
Thanks very much.
I learn something new almost every time you respond!
But someone complained that SA did not work well if
On 09/01/2014 02:18 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
use_bayes 0
this the master switch
the rest are not necessary if use_bayes ise set to 0
On 1. sep. 2014 14.19.23 Timothy Murphy gayle...@alice.it wrote:
On Monday, September 01, 2014 01:28:24 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
As a matter of interest, how can one turn Bayes on/off?
use_learner 0
use_bayes 0
use_bayes_rules 0
Check all pre files, might be there in a loadplugin, coment
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes filter turned on and you take
the time to feed it. And that means
you have to feed the
learner both ham and spam and setup reliable sources for those.
Unfortunately if Bayes is not turned on,
On 8/31/2014 2:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes filter turned on and you take
the time to feed it. And that means
you have to feed the
learner both ham and spam and setup reliable sources for those.
Am 31.08.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 8/31/2014 2:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes filter turned on and you
take the time to feed it. And that means
you have to feed the
learner both
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:55:50 +0200,
Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Axb During the last +-4 years, scores have been set by the masscheck GA
Axb system. IF more ppl would contribute with masschecks and rules,
Axb detection could be better, but the lack of volunteers doing this
Axb shows that
On 08/31/2014 10:54 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:55:50 +0200,
Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Axb During the last +-4 years, scores have been set by the masscheck GA
Axb system. IF more ppl would contribute with masschecks and rules,
Axb detection could be better, but the
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
i think it's impossible to improve that much out-of-the-box because
that would make it to sensitive while the bayes has the ham side of
your communication too for decisions
Google does it. It's not impossible.
But not out of the box. Google
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial providers like Gmail are now
so aggressive that false positives are VERY common on their systems,
this leads to people nowadays quite commonly
after two days running SA for the first two test-domains with a
well trained bayes for the global milter-user: impressive!
the few crap making it through poscreen RBL scroing is detected
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 1389
Yes, it does work great when you have the bayes filter turned on and you
take the time to feed it. And that means you have to feed the
learner both ham and spam and setup reliable sources for those.
Unfortunately if Bayes is not turned on, it does not catch more than
around 60-70% of spam.
51 matches
Mail list logo
