Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Loren Wilton]

Keep in mind that freedon of speech says that you can stand in the park on a 
soapbox and shout.

It does NOT say that passers-by are forced to stand there and listen to you 
until you run out of voice. They can walk away any time they want to.

It also does not say that the local newspaper is required to take down 
everything you say and print it on the front page for all their readers. (But 
freeedom of the press says that they can, and you can't sue them for copyright 
infringement or much of anything else for doing so, even though people and 
organizations now try that.)

Whether any organization has an obligation to convey the voice in the park to 
all of its customers, or even a selection of them, is an interesting question. 
By and large, organiizations in the US have the rights of individuals, and that 
includes the right to walk away and stop listening. The major possible 
exception would be a "common carrier", which cannot disconnect a call because 
they don't like what is being said. 

But ISPs are NOT common carriers. So even if the spammer is addressing spam to 
specific individuals, the ISPs, not being common carriers, do not have an 
obligation to deliver the spam.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

When business and government are in bed together to silence dissent then yes it 
is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Under the terms of their establishment certain businesses cannot prohibit 
dissent (freedom to speak).

Private individuals have no authority to prohibit freedom of speech.

People misunderstand freedom of speech. John Adams stated that, "Our 
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly 
inadequate to the government of any other."

In light of this, it's funny, sad really, that people pull the "freedom of 
speech" card to justify immorality.

Or, when some use the "no political or religious speech here" tactic, they are 
actually denying legitimate and authorized speech and unwittingly calling for 
chaos and lawlessness.



On Nov 20, 2020, 10:16 PM, at 10:16 PM, "Linda A. Walsh"  
wrote:
>One thing to be aware of.  There is no 1st Amendment Right associated
>with any business entity or private person.  The guarantees apply to
>US government and whether or not they can censor what you say.
>
>I would suspect governments use something more advanced than SA that
>costs
>thousands of times more and in the end, works no better than SA.
>
>Also, a government employee isn't necessarily required to let you
>say anything you want if it wastes their time or they are uninterested.
>
>Spam wastes everyone's time and resources in dealing with it.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Linda A. Walsh]

One thing to be aware of.  There is no 1st Amendment Right associated
with any business entity or private person.  The guarantees apply to
US government and whether or not they can censor what you say.

I would suspect governments use something more advanced than SA that costs
thousands of times more and in the end, works no better than SA.

Also, a government employee isn't necessarily required to let you
say anything you want if it wastes their time or they are uninterested.

Spam wastes everyone's time and resources in dealing with it.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[jdow]

On 20201120 18:35:35, noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:

On 2020-11-21 04:59, Jakob Curdes wrote:


To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not
every corner of the world is interested in the way the current
conflicts in the U.S. are handled.



well said!



Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S.
constitution, for me as a german  my own constitution is the
guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.
And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.



and as an Australian, the right to block spammers was supported by the courts 
a very long time ago (those of us old enough i'm sure remember t3 direct who 
insisted he had the right to spam and not be blocked - but the courts ruled 
otherwise)


That said, our own Spam Act also excludes charities, pollies and religions - 
however we still have a right to filter/trash/block/not-deliver their trash to 
inboxes, its just those orgs cant be prosecuted.


It's worth noting that based on what these loud-mouths are saying they have not 
really read the US Consitution carefully in at least their lifetime. All they 
know is what their favorite pundit says the constitution says when said pundit 
is itself ignorant or is intentionally biased and trying to use outrage to 
increase viewership. Americans, at least, should read what they are prattling about.


{o.o}   ( <- has an unfortunate habit of revisiting those words rather often. So 
I am led to shake my head ruefully and laugh at the same time over the ignorance 
and extreme bias and indeed "projection" I've seen posted here.)

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[noel . butler]

On 2020-11-21 04:59, Jakob Curdes wrote:


To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not
every corner of the world is interested in the way the current
conflicts in the U.S. are handled.



well said!



Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S.
constitution, for me as a german  my own constitution is the
guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.
And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.



and as an Australian, the right to block spammers was supported by the 
courts a very long time ago (those of us old enough i'm sure remember t3 
direct who insisted he had the right to spam and not be blocked - but 
the courts ruled otherwise)


That said, our own Spam Act also excludes charities, pollies and 
religions - however we still have a right to 
filter/trash/block/not-deliver their trash to inboxes, its just those 
orgs cant be prosecuted.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

Dealing with spam from spammers takes up time that could be spent doing 
profitable tasks. In other words it wastes resources not only of the 
end-user having to sort through 100 bad emails to get to 2 good emails 
(which I've dealt with) but for IT departments having to spend hours 
trying to defeat them.


Spammers are thieves plan and simple.

On 11/20/2020 5:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:

On 11/20/20 5:02 PM, Jay Plesset wrote:

You have a right to say what you want.


s/You have/You (largely) have/

There are specific things that are forbidden by law.  E.g. yelling 
fire in a movie theater when there isn't a fire.



I have a right to ignore you.


Hear! Hear!

Also, it's my /personal/ and /private/ email server.  /I/ will run it 
the way that /I/ want to.  If that means that I decide not to accept 
your email, then so be it.


I'm /not/ preventing you from sending your email to anyone else. Ergo 
I'm in no way, shape, or form, infringing on on you.  Though it is 
sort of ironic that thousands of other email administrators also think 
like I do and are deciding not to accept your messages.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.


#truth

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Grant Taylor]

On 11/20/20 5:02 PM, Jay Plesset wrote:

You have a right to say what you want.


s/You have/You (largely) have/

There are specific things that are forbidden by law.  E.g. yelling fire 
in a movie theater when there isn't a fire.



I have a right to ignore you.


Hear! Hear!

Also, it's my /personal/ and /private/ email server.  /I/ will run it 
the way that /I/ want to.  If that means that I decide not to accept 
your email, then so be it.


I'm /not/ preventing you from sending your email to anyone else.  Ergo 
I'm in no way, shape, or form, infringing on on you.  Though it is sort 
of ironic that thousands of other email administrators also think like I 
do and are deciding not to accept your messages.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.


#truth



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

And...

Ultimately, does the Creator--the author of rights--sanction the 
harassment of and theft from others by spammers.


On 11/20/2020 4:59 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your 
conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They 
prefer sending spam you prefer they didn't.


They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument 
(*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its 
origin, religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate 
authority rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"


I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position. 
I also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be 
brought bear to refute them.


I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st 
Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.



*Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come 
from the Creator.


On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:

On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their 
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify 
what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, 
albeit wrongly.
It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison 
politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal 
preference) for what they do. Curious!
At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who 
oppose them.



I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam 
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, 
and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that 
THEIR greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs 
are often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite 
beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR 
"greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is 
justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in 
sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Jay Plesset]

I think this argument is sort of odd.  Here is my take:


You have a right to say what you want.

I have a right to ignore you.

Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.

jay  plesset, IT director. D. P. Design

On 11/20/2020 3:59 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your 
conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They 
prefer sending spam you prefer they didn't.


They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument 
(*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its 
origin, religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate 
authority rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"


I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position. 
I also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be 
brought bear to refute them.


I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st 
Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.



*Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come 
from the Creator.


On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:

On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their 
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify 
what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, 
albeit wrongly.
It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison 
politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal 
preference) for what they do. Curious!
At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who 
oppose them.



I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam 
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, 
and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that 
THEIR greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs 
are often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite 
beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR 
"greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is 
justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in 
sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your 
conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They prefer 
sending spam you prefer they didn't.


They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument 
(*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its origin, 
religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate authority 
rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"


I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position. I 
also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be 
brought bear to refute them.


I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st 
Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.



*Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come from 
the Creator.


On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:

On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their 
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify 
what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, 
albeit wrongly.
It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison 
politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal 
preference) for what they do. Curious!
At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who 
oppose them.



I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam 
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, 
and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR 
greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are 
often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite 
beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR 
"greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is 
justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in 
sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Rob McEwen]

On 11/20/2020 4:59 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
non-profit stuff in the US is EXEMPT from CAN-SPAM, so they don’t even 
have to play by the rules



still, that doesn't give them a free pass to the inbox, or prevent them 
from potentially getting listed on an anti-spam list. MANY spammers that 
are blocked by spam filters and/or listed on anti-spam lists - were 
already CAN-SPAM compliant. Being *legal* is a very low bar for email, 
especially in the U.S.


--
Rob McEwen, invaluement

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Charles Sprickman]

> On Nov 20, 2020, at 4:45 PM, Rob McEwen  wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their actions. 
>> I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify what they do by 
>> something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit wrongly.
>> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics (and 
>> religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) for what they 
>> do. Curious!
>> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who oppose 
>> them.
> 
> 
> I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam 
> collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, and 
> moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR greater 
> good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are often in 100% 
> contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite beliefs, but likewise think 
> that their spam is justified by THEIR "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my 
> job to determine who is justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them 
> are justified in sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.

I mean, remember campaign and I believe non-profit stuff in the US is EXEMPT 
from CAN-SPAM, so they don’t even have to play by the rules.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/candid-answers-can-spam-questions
 


First amendment stuff is going to be very fun with this current crop of federal 
judges and the SC. A recent ruling said public health interests can be 
overruled because “masking” is somehow restricting speech, lol.

Charles

> 
> -- 
> Rob McEwen, invaluement
> 

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Rob McEwen]

On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their 
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify 
what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit 
wrongly.
It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics 
(and religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) 
for what they do. Curious!
At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who 
oppose them.



I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam 
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, and 
moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR 
greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are often 
in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite beliefs, but 
likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR "greater good". 
Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is justified and, instead, 
I believe that NONE of them are justified in sending spam - spam is 
about *consent* - NOT *content*.


--
Rob McEwen, invaluement

Re: contact from blacklist

[RW]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:28:52 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Philipp Ewald wrote:
> 
> > On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought
> > maybe there will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > Thanks for contact BLABLALBA
> >
> > Your Text to us:
> > SPAM  
> 
> This looks like abuse of a web-based feedback form at alnatura.de;
> they don't appear to have a CAPTCHA on their feedback form so it's
> possible it's being abused by spambots.
...
> A BL of domains with abusable feedback forms would be handy, but data 
> collection and maintenance seems problematic.


There's also a variant that used to be a big part of my spam where the
spammer puts a brief message into a display name field during a
sign-up. The confirmation or verification email is then the spam. A lot
of these have a personalised greeting at the top, so it works well. 
 

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their 
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify what 
they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit wrongly.


It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics 
(and religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) for 
what they do. Curious!


At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who 
oppose them.

Re: contact from blacklist

[Levente Birta]

Hi,

On 20/11/2020 20:46, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Philipp are these spam using things like Google forms for spam? If so, 
take a look at KAM.cf on mcgrail.com, we've added a number of rules to 
combat those recently.


BTW, anyone willing to test the KAM channel?  We've got it in 
production use for a while now.


I'd like to try the KAM channel. A quick install how-to would be nice too

thanks
Levi



Regards,
KAM

On 11/20/2020 12:38 PM, Philipp Ewald wrote:

Hi everyone,

lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.

Does anyone know a blacklist for this?

Kind regards
Philipp

Re: contact from blacklist

[John Hardin]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

Philipp are these spam using things like Google forms for spam? If so, take a 
look at KAM.cf on mcgrail.com, we've added a number of rules to combat those 
recently.


There are also Google Docs rules in the base ruleset that should catch 
that.


Based on the sample that was posted, it looks to me like abuse of a 
web-based feedback form - post a spammy feedback using the email address 
of your victim and you spam the victim via the confirmation (and the 
domain hosting the feedback form at the same time).


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.org pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Maxim I: Pillage, _then_ burn.
---
 174 days since the first private commercial manned orbital mission (SpaceX)

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Jakob Curdes]

Am 20.11.2020 um 15:59 schrieb AJ Weber:

On 11/20/2020 9:28 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to 
listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.
I think you should keep politics out of this.  If I want to hear opinions from the liberal-left, 
I'll be sure to circle back with you.  That's not what this is about.
To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not every corner of the world is 
interested in the way the current conflicts in the U.S. are handled.


Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S. constitution, for me as a german  my own 
constitution is the guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.

And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.

JC

Re: contact from blacklist

[Kevin A. McGrail]

Philipp are these spam using things like Google forms for spam? If so, 
take a look at KAM.cf on mcgrail.com, we've added a number of rules to 
combat those recently.


BTW, anyone willing to test the KAM channel?  We've got it in production 
use for a while now.


Regards,
KAM

On 11/20/2020 12:38 PM, Philipp Ewald wrote:

Hi everyone,

lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.

Does anyone know a blacklist for this?

Kind regards
Philipp


--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Re: contact from blacklist

[John Hardin]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, Philipp Ewald wrote:

On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought maybe there 
will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.


...


Thanks for contact BLABLALBA

Your Text to us:
SPAM


This looks like abuse of a web-based feedback form at alnatura.de; they 
don't appear to have a CAPTCHA on their feedback form so it's possible 
it's being abused by spambots.


Is the source domain (alnatura.de) consistent, just the spammy content 
changes? If so, a blacklist_from entry for nore...@alnatura.de might work 
while contacting the domain (NOT via the feedback form!) and letting them 
know their feedback form is being abused for spam and they should add a 
CAPTCHA. Though, they should realize that when they see a ton of spam in 
their feedback system. They may just be cursing fate and deleting it.


A BL of domains with abusable feedback forms would be handy, but data 
collection and maintenance seems problematic. I don't think one currently 
exists.


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.org pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that
  they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly,
  and one by one. -- Charles MacKay, 1852
---
 174 days since the first private commercial manned orbital mission (SpaceX)

Re: contact from blacklist

[Benny Pedersen]

Philipp Ewald skrev den 2020-11-20 19:08:

nope i will check spamassassin for more "low" volume services

URIBL provides public lookups over DNS for low volume usage. If you 
spam check a large amount of email, or you use a shared DNS platform 
for resolution, you may receive a response saying the query was 
refused.


we have a higher usage


then either deny uribl.com in local.cf or make a datafeed to solve it

you can test on http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/ if the uri is listed 
somewhere

Re: contact from blacklist

[Philipp Ewald]

nope i will check spamassassin for more "low" volume services


URIBL provides public lookups over DNS for low volume usage. If you spam check 
a large amount of email, or you use a shared DNS platform for resolution, you 
may receive a response saying the query was refused.


we have a higher usage




On 11/20/20 7:05 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:

Philipp Ewald skrev den 2020-11-20 18:52:


X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.526
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.526 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no



http://uribl.com/usage.shtml

urirhssub   URIBL_BLOCKED   multi.uribl.com.    A   1
body    URIBL_BLOCKED   eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLOCKED')
describe    URIBL_BLOCKED   ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was 
blocked.  See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists\#dnsbl-block 
for more information.
tflags  URIBL_BLOCKED   net noautolearn

works better if you solve this


--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator

DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de

AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain

Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds

Re: contact from blacklist

[Benny Pedersen]

Philipp Ewald skrev den 2020-11-20 18:52:


X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.526
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.526 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no



http://uribl.com/usage.shtml

urirhssub   URIBL_BLOCKED   multi.uribl.com.A   1
bodyURIBL_BLOCKED   eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLOCKED')
describeURIBL_BLOCKED   ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL 
was blocked.  See 
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists\#dnsbl-block for more 
information.

tflags  URIBL_BLOCKED   net noautolearn

works better if you solve this

Re: contact from blacklist

[Philipp Ewald]

On 11/20/20 6:41 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
  


Url blacklists? Maybe paste some headers here?


Not real URL Blacklist.

On my freemail-account i got this kind of email too so i thought maybe there 
will be a Blacklist for this kind of SPAM.

X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.901
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.901 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.alnatura.de (mail.alnatura.de [145.253.236.209])
by mailwall.bringe.digionline.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F222445BD4
for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:18:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from psrvexc03.alnatura.local ([10.11.11.49]:37454 
helo=mail.alnatura.de)
by mail.alnatura.de with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX)
(envelope-from )
id 1kg5My-0005UX-2H
for postmaster@; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:18:28 +0100
Received: from PSRVEXC04.alnatura.local (10.11.11.52) by
 PSRVEXC03.alnatura.local (10.11.11.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:18:28 +0100
Received: from RD0003FF4CBBCD (13.80.108.215) by smtp.alnatura.de
 (10.11.11.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend
 Transport; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:18:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: nore...@alnatura.de
To: postmaster@
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:18:28 +0100
Subject: Kontaktformular Alnatura 20.11.2020 13:18:28
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID: <08fd5fa0-6388-4af1-96c1-9fe93e59fc7a@PSRVEXC04.alnatura.local>

###

X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.526
X-Spam-Level: +
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.526 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from production331.hipex.io (production331.hipex.io [195.201.187.140])
by mailwall.bringe.digionline.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E152476FC
for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 22:17:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: by production331.hipex.io (Postfix, from userid 2005)
id EA15A7D2DB1; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 22:16:41 +0100 (CET)
To: postmaster@
Subject: 
=?UTF-8?Q?Danke=20f=C3=BCr=20Ihre=20Kontaktanfrage:=20Mein=20Konto=20/=20?=  
=?UTF-8?Q?Frage=20zur=20Rechnung=20/=20Ein=20Konto=20erstellen?=
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:16:41 +
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: nore...@heuts.de

Thanks for contact BLABLALBA

Your Text to us:
SPAM


or is this only a german problem?


Kind regards
Philipp




--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator

DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de

AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain

Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds

RE: contact from blacklist

[Marc Roos]

 

Url blacklists? Maybe paste some headers here?



-Original Message-
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: contact from blacklist

Hi everyone,

lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.

Does anyone know a blacklist for this?

Kind regards
Philipp

--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator

DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de

AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain

Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds

contact from blacklist

[Philipp Ewald]

Hi everyone,

lately I get more and more spam from so called contact forms.

Does anyone know a blacklist for this?

Kind regards
Philipp

--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator

DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de

AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain

Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[John Hardin]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, AJ Weber wrote:


I think you should keep politics out of this.


+1

*PLEASE*

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.org pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
 174 days since the first private commercial manned orbital mission (SpaceX)

RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?

[Marc Roos]

 
Thanks for the update! Although I am not really an advocate for blocking 
people. 



-Original Message-
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?

On 26/10/20 5:17 am, Marc Roos wrote:
>> make a reality check outside your small bubble!
> typical low iq response. I was already discussing the validity of 
> these soccerplayer contracts before they had to change the system.
>
Afternoon Marc.

Just thought I'd let you know this same person was blocked from CentOS 
mailing list a while back due to trolling.  I'm not sure the chemicals 
deep in his noggin work as they are supposed to.  On the CentOS mailing 
list, we stopped feeding the troll and I, specifically, made sure that 
I'd never again see an email from his likes.  I wonder if the 
SpamAssassin admins could just as well stop feeding the troll here as 
well.  By stop I mean block it at the entrance.

Not knowing how many sunrises and sunsets the troll has seen, I'd want 
to hope that it's seen enough to warrant an expedient expiry - but I can 
only wish.

In the meantime, enjoy the comedy that it is.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[AJ Weber]

On 11/20/2020 9:28 AM, @lbutlr wrote:

A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an 
obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also 
racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.
I think you should keep politics out of this.  If I want to hear 
opinions from the liberal-left, I'll be sure to circle back with you.  
That's not what this is about.

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[@lbutlr]

On 19 Nov 2020, at 14:25, Kevin A. McGrail  wrote:
> So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers about how 
> I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their spam as free 
> speech.  I've had to explain that I'm not the government and hence there are 
> no 1st amendment rights involved.

A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an 
obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also 
racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.

Just because a spammer has the right to speak does not mean I have to listen. I 
am within my rights to drown them out with a loudspeaker while I stand next to 
them so I can't hear them, because that is MY rights to free speech.

And, of course, their rights to free speech do not apply to anything but 
government interference. It does not apply to mailing lists, Twitter, web 
comments, and it does not give them the right to access my server and deliver 
crap to my users/accounts.

> However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent article 
> about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
> 
> 

It's a good summary.

-- 
IT WOULD BE A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE, said Death. EXACTLY A MILLION TO
ONE CHANCE. 'Oh,' said the Bursar, intensely relieved. 'Oh dear.
What a shame.' --Eric

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

[Eric Broch]

In summation the Bill of Rights (1-10 amendments) protects (or is 
supposed to protect) the life, liberty, and property of the individual 
from abuse by the newly created government and are commands of the 
people to this governments' servants.


If I tell one child not to draw on the walls with crayons does that mean 
that it's okay for another child to do so? I think not! So, when the 
people command their government not to trample their rights, this in no 
way gives permission for others to do so.


It is not okay, for say, Antifa, to rob my store. Government was 
instituted to protect the innocent from others while not abusing the 
innocent itself.


The 1st Amendment is not a right, it's a command from the people to the 
central government. That's why it's illegitimate to say, "I have a 1st 
Amendment right."


The words of spammers are complete B.S. They rob people of time and 
money by clogging legitimate communications, email. It's like a third 
party continually interrupting a conversation two people are having.


Basically rights are things that my Creator has authorized me (and 
others) to do. Spammers are not authorized to interrupt communications 
between consenting parties. Their interruptions waste our livelihood. We 
could be spending time in more profitable endeavors. So, basically, 
spammers are thieves.


To Google and other social media: The terms of their establishment 
dictate that they cannot prevent free speech. These institutions are 
acting as arms of the establishment in pushing the official narrative 
and silencing descent.




On 11/19/2020 2:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

Afternoon Everyone,

So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers 
about how I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their 
spam as free speech.  I've had to explain that I'm not the government 
and hence there are no 1st amendment rights involved.


However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent 
article about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:


https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first 



Regards,

KAM