Eric Crist wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it
was
very effective, but that
On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Eric Crist wrote:
I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I
have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers
are from the first week of May 2007 to today:
Greylisted/Rejected Messages: 187560
Spam Tagged Messages:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of
months it
was
very effective, but that is long gone. Spa
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
>> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it
> was
>> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they
>> follow the de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sten and the rest,
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem
is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling
reveals a wh
--On December 16, 2007 8:13:34 PM +0100 "Heiko Wundram (Beenic)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither of the two packages I recommended are anything close to bayesian
filtering, as they don't actually take measure on the content of the
mail (which isn't available anyway when the corresponding rul
Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 14:48:35 schrieb Jorn Argelo:
>
> Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We
> had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there
> the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam
> mails a day at leas
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was
> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they
> follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do.
> Greylisting is a start, bu
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger:
Install the following:
/usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight
/usr/ports/mail/postgrey
Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to
keep SPAM out of our com
> > I have found spam assassin with nightly updates of the helpful (there
> > are other people developing new regexs daily).
> >
> > 48 5 * * * /usr/local/bin/sa-update --channel updates.spamassassin.org
> > && /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd restart
> >
> > There are other channels you can subscribe
Rudy wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
* Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first
ow have it running on 4 different sites.
Cheers,
Paul Hamilton
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sten Daniel Soersdal
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:12 AM
> To: freebsd-questions
> Subject: (postfix) SPAM
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger:
> Install the following:
>
> /usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight
> /usr/ports/mail/postgrey
Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to
keep SPAM out of our company pretty much completely. Both a
Steve Bertrand wrote:
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
* Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll
>> * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
>> * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
>> filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
> Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll
> never happen,
On 12/12/07, Sten Daniel Soersdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
> reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
> problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
> Googling reveals a whole
On Thursday 13 December 2007 03:35:00 Duane Hill wrote:
>
> It has been pretty low maintenance. I am in the process of evaluating
> the possibility of using amavis-new.
I used amavis-new on a Linux system and lost the ability to have per-user
settings. I had to go with a systemwide setting and
Duane Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500
> Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no
>> real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings.
>> I am probably wrong though.
>
> Postfix is running
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500
Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no
> real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings.
> I am probably wrong though.
Postfix is running here on a FreeBSD server as a
On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
means. Googling reveals a whole "uni
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
> would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
> The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
> means. Googling reveals a whole "u
>> * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
>> * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can
>> be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
>>
>> Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much
>> importance to m
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
> reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
> problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
> Googling reveals a whole "universe" of interesting ways b
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
> would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
> The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
> means. Googling reveals a whole "u
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
Googling reveals a whole "universe" of interesting ways but what should
i pursue?
The th
ly.
I started collecting spam a few years ago, and I use a Bayesian filter
called ifile to handle junk. I trained it using just over 117,000 crapmail
messages, and I don't get a lot of spam these days...
http://www.dnaco.net/~vogelke/Software/Internet/Servers/Mail/Spam/Ifile/
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:03:06 +0200, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
R> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote:
J> I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
J> mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
J>
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 15:20 -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote:
> I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
> mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
> primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV
> scanning would be a plus
On October 01, 2007 at 01:31PM Ryan Phillips wrote:
> Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-(
> >
> > as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and
> > the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes h
etc.
Cheers,
Terry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pollywog
Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2007 8:48 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:48:09 Pollywog wrote:
> On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
> > >> By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-
> > >> weight.
> > >> mail/postfix-policyd-weight
> > >
> > >
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
> >> By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-
> >> weight.
> >> mail/postfix-policyd-weight
> >
> > Agreed. +1. Me too.
>
> Seconded (or thirded :).
>
> policyd-weig
On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-
weight.
mail/postfix-policyd-weight
Agreed. +1. Me too.
Seconded (or thirded :).
policyd-weight is much smaller than amavisd-new or SpamAssassin (it
tends to run a couple
By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-weight.
mail/postfix-policyd-weight
Agreed. +1. Me too.
:)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
--On Monday, October 01, 2007 06:21:48 +0100 Martin Hepworth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the
correct installation type.
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:
postfix:politics
By far the best
On 10/1/07, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-(
> >
> > as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues
> and
> > the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes
Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-(
>
> as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and
> the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-)
The Better Gmail plugin for Firefox includes an option t
On 9/30/07, Joe in MPLS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
> mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
> primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV
> scanning would be a plus too.
>
On October 01, 2007 at 06:39AM Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-(
Actually, Outlook can be configured to place replies at the bottom of
a replied to message.
I am amazed though that you have not been able to figure out how to
navigate to the botto
Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-(
as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and
the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-)
--
martin
On 10/1/07, Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On October 01, 2007 at 01:21AM Martin Hepwor
On October 01, 2007 at 01:21AM Martin Hepworth wrote:
> On 9/30/07, Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote:
> > > At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote:
> > > >I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde
> > f
Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the
correct installation type.
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics
--
Martin
On 9/30/07, Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Rago
On Sunday 30 September 2007 21:03:06 Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote:
> > I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
> > mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
> > primary spam control (espe
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote:
> I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
> mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
> primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV
> scanning would be
On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote:
> At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote:
> >I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
> >mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
> >primary spam control (especially because our PDA
At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote:
I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV
scanning would be a plus too.
I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw & horde for
mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird & PDAs) for
primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV
scanning would be a plus too.
...jgm
_
simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a
> spam
> filter.
>
> Many thanky in advance.
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To u
:00 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: SPAM Filter
I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail
server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam
filter.
Many thanky in advance.
_
> I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail
> server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam
> filter.
SpamAssassin (.org)
Olivier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.or
I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail
server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam
filter.
Many thanky in advance.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.f
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:47:58PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is "sieve". FYI I am FreeBSD
> > newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions.
> >
>
> http://spamassassin.org
You might wanna combine spamfiler (which is _realy_ good) wi
> I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is "sieve". FYI I am FreeBSD newbie
> want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions.
>
http://spamassassin.org
Steve
> Thanks in Advance.
> Ajit
> ___
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> http://lists.
ROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Spam Filter - Sieve
Hi All,
I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is "sieve". FYI I am FreeBSD
newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions.
Thanks in Advance.
Ajit
_
Hi All,
I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is "sieve". FYI I am FreeBSD newbie
want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions.
Thanks in Advance.
Ajit
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ques
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 04:23, Dragoncrest wrote:
> Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using
> spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of
> these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal
> w
Dragoncrest schrieb:
Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently
using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and
more of these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal
without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a
* Dragoncrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030127 07:14]: wrote:
> Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently
> using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more
> of these stupid viruses coming into the mail se
mail
system.
- Original Message -
From: "Dragoncrest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: Spam filter combined with virus filter
> Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently u
Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using
spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of
these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal
without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a good spam filter/vi
Mike, this message was originally posted to the FreeBSD-chat mailing
list, where by definition it's on topic. It is definitely not on
topic for FreeBSD-questions. Please don't forward this sort of thing
to this list.
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients.
I
At 2003-01-05T00:27:01Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply
> to off-topic or offensive mail messages.
Actually, Greg, there are two things we can do. The second is to GPG-sign
*and* GPG-verify email. I'm
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 13:58:59 -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
>> At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
>>
>>> Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda.
>>
>> It should remain his own.
>>
>>> But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
>>
>> No, it's
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 17:05:26 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote:
>> On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "Stacey Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Dude,
>>>You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
>>
>> Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite
>> well.
Oh come on, we can behave better than this...In normal conversation,
there is no reason to use such potentially offensive language, when
discussing FreeBSD. Which I might add what this list is supposed to be
about. At least, I know that's why I signed up for it.
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "S
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:58:59PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
> GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to
> the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre
> if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers!
Window
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "Stacey Roberts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Dude,
>You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well.
Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5?
> For your inf
>Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread.
1. Don't bottom quote, it's terribly annoying.
2. Since you're a clueless negro who couldn't compile helloworld.c if his
life depended on it, shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Paul
--
Paul Saab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://fastmail.fm - Fas
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:58, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
> >At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
> >>He has his own agenda.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It should remain his own.
> >
> >
> >
> >>But GCC is why you can compile
Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
He has his own agenda.
It should remain his own.
But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
No, it's not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's
written in C. GCC just happens to b
At 06:13 PM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
>I've been in contact with the port maintainer. His position: 1) This problem is out
>of scope for him, 2) He is away on holiday and can't easily access the FreeBSD
>cluster, 3) Other pressures will keep him from this problem for several weeks. He
>ad
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-28 13:49:31 -0700:
> Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> offense for good reason.
so you think you have a *right* to send me email? you must be
joking.
--
If you cc me or remove the
; > you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your
> > message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to
> > let your mail through?
>
> In this case, the package configuration puts 'spam' in a separate folder
> an
r ISP, etc, etc.
How many bounced messages are you talking about, approximately? Would
you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your
message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to
let your mail through?
In this case, the package configuration
Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting "fire" from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my
CAN WE GET THIS THREAD KILLED NOW ???
It has nothing to do with FreeBSD.
Please shut up and move this thread somewhere else!
Poul-Henning
In message <1041114029.3577.60.camel@pitbull>, Shawn Duffy writes:
>
>--=-hYgamAC/8Ubo1V9A/Ysq
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted
I would say a better solution that blocks would be header/body based
phrase and word matching on a weighting system like spamassassin
provides. The False positive rates for such a system are MUCH lower
than what you could ever hope for with a blacklist. Also regarding
Inflow. They have been warned
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Chris Orr wrote:
> *doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet*
>
better yet, who's laws should be followed then? should the world follow
the american laws like loyal puppies or should we follow another countries
laws? perhaps the law of the country of the sendin
at can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will
> > > > > > probably sue over it and win...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shawn
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2002-12-28
> well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will
> > > > > > probably sue over it and win...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shawn
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On S
ll
> > > > > probably sue over it and win...
> > > > >
> > > > > shawn
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > How do you find
gt; > > > > How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can they be sued?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> &g
Harry Tabak wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with spam filters; like most things
(and most people), they aren't perfect and the
be sued?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> > > > Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [T
t;
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> > > Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD&#x
I _really_ fail to see what this has to do with FreeBSD.
Can you please move this to a more appropriate forum ? I'm sure
there are lists and groups out there where the black-listing
crew communicates.
Thankyou!
Poul-Henning
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Duncan Patton a Campb
ell writes:
>--
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Rick Hamell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> > regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> > offense for good reason.
>
> Email is not regulated by the government.
>
> Rick
(please tell me this is just a dream, and this thread really isn't
happening and I am not participating...)
++ 28/12/02 08:45 -0500 - Harry Tabak:
| I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
| posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
The
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> > I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
> > my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
> > that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your
Abe wrote:
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file?
Nevermind. I found the Inflow entry in sb-blockdomains.rc file. :)
Regards,
Abe Ro
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
> my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
> that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to
> be "off-topic," because it doesn't re
> Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> offense for good reason.
Email is not regulated by the government.
Rick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
>I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting "fire" from their own
>website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my paper at http://www.
support for the Five-Ten-SG blacklist is disabled by
default in the sb.rc file.
(see http://www.spambouncer.org/#BlacklistSupport).
Regards,
Abe Ro
Harry Tabak wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from anoth
on the list? And who has the list?
> > >
> > > Can they be sued?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> > > Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ton a Campbell wrote:
> How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
>
> Can they be sued?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [This is a resend. Iro
;
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> > Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
> >
How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
Can they be sued?
Thanks,
Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
> filter, I&#x
Someone, quite probably Harry Tabak, once wrote:
>> From: Chuck Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
>>
>> You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't
>> configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care.
>
In some mail from Allan Jude, sie said:
>
> This is not all that surprising
> The behavior you are talking about, blocking entire isp's and blocks of
> ips, is the same as the other service you mentioned earlier, SPEWS.
>
> SPEWS has blocked 2 entire c-classes at my isp, preventing my company
> f
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
