I don't know how hard it would be, but what about just adding in a pre filter in the
spamdomains test that will bypass the test. Like:
Spamdomains.txt:
[RDNS excluded from check]
ebay.com
greetingcardvendor.com
[includes]
.yahoo.com
@msn.com
etc, etc
This would also allow us to build our
I have been thinking about setting up an in-house DNSBL and would
appreciate it if some kind person here could point me in the right
direction on getting started. I can pretty much figure out how to
create a e-mail submission for the service when I want to make updates,
but I'm not to sure on the
Would you be interested in sharing this. It looks great!
Thanks!
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Grotjan
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Opinions on web
Typically I only send SPAMCOP e-mails that pass through our Declude
filters. The theory being that now SPAMCOP will know about that
address, list it, and it won't clear Declude again.
I don't see the reasoning behind sending SPAMCOP thousands of e-mails
per day that are already stopped by your
So as of Monday are we going to have a new organization running the .com /
.net TLDs? lol
It's about time
Buh Bye Verislime
Jason
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Levitsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Happy
But, Kami just listed the revdns whitelists, wouldn't the spammer have to
have a RDNS listing of something in her whitelist (not likely) to take
advantage of the listing?
Jason
- Original Message -
From: Keith Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15,
So the e-mail that Mr. Koehler listed yesterday afternoon about this subject
is incorrect? Darn, that would be an awesome feature. His e-mail is listed
below...
Personal Whitelist
A personal whitelist allows you to accept email messages from any email
address you want no matter how many Spam
Everyone,
We have decided to close the Trustic service. As has become apparent
recently, there are several issues with the system as it is designed. As
such, we do not believe Trustic will reach the level of accuracy that we
require. The issue of handling large ISPs that, for the most part,
Title: Message
I
think that while the spamdomains test is wonderful, many people are trying to
overuse it as a test. IMO it is there to protect against forgeries of the
major e-mailservices, and it does that task great. It's usefullness
declines when it is used in a greater fashion. For
- Original Message -
From: Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] New spamcop style RBL..
2. To send Trustic your (confirmed!) spam (typically only that
which has received very heavy weighting and
All tiffs aside :),
Can I get some clarity on the operation here? If I personally submit an
e-mail that says 10.10.10.10 is a spammer IP, and that same address has
10 positives and 1 negative (Me). I understand that the IP will
probably be trusted, but is there something in the background that
Josh,
What is the entry you have put in your config file? (If you don't mind
sharing)
Thanks
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Levitsky
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 9:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Title: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude using 50% cpu
Also, can we ask what hardware / OS this is running
on?
Jason
- Original Message -
From:
John Tolmachoff (Lists)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:03
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
Great letter Kevin, but I recently tried to explain this to a company and their
engineer said that it was by design. His explanation was that they did it for
security/obscurity reasons and we were applying to strong restrictions on mail
delivery. Sometimes you just can't win with these
I would like to begin using the NOLEGITCONTENT
test, but the mail archives are down :(. Can someone send me the lines I
need in the configs to get this going?
Thanks
Jason
Thanks Scott (and Bill)
We are holding on 20 right now (with very few FPs), so without divulging the
details of the test, is -8 too much or too little a weight? Or should I
just test test test to see what types of mail are failing/passing the test?
Thanks Gents!
Jason
- Original Message
Isn't that backwards?
Firewall with Fixup - ESMTP will not work, and mail defaults to
ordinary SMTP transaction
Firewall without Fixup -- ESMTP works fine
Jason
- Original Message -
From: Rick Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not a tarpit.
You have a dynamic IP blocker. Tarpitting doesn't block, it slows the
attack down, consuming more of their resources, and making their connection
seem like it is stuck in a pit of tar (hence the name)
Jason
- Original Message -
Kami,
Is your DNS that IMAIL/Declude uses local to you? Or are you using an
upstream DNS? That many IPV4 tests may warrant this. We noticed a large
performance boost by using a DNS on the local LAN.
Just a thought
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Rocketmail.com resolves to yahoo.com
So:
Rocketmail.com yahoo.com
Would be a valid entry
What about the following?
Bigfoot.com
Geocities.com
Rocketmail.com
Markus
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
20 matches
Mail list logo