On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:15:35 -0400
Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:03:01 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes,
On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:05:33 +0100
Bruce Cran articulated:
There have been some discussions about this in the past.
freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may
be unfamiliar with mailing lists being put off posting to it.
Seriously? If some potential poster were so
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:18:18PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
I'm a big fan of _not_ having to subscribe to a list to get a quick
hand with a one off problem (obviously not this one!)- otherwise too
many lists get subscribed to, oodles of messages come in which you
can't do anything about and so
On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that he/she
could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list then I would
seriously doubt that they would possess the necessary skills to
install and run FreeBSD to begin with. Lets be honest
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that he/she
could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list then I
would seriously doubt that they would possess the necessary skills
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:42, Jerry wrote:
Seriously? If some potential poster were so brain dead that
he/she could not comprehend how to subscribe to the mailing list
then I would
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of people who post
messages PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!!, apparently
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:03:01 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:29 -0400
Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
RW articulated:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:54:29 +0100
Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of people who post
On 05/17/2013 05:45, Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:19:32 +0100
It seems to me that the level of spam in list is pretty much
negligible.
That would be a subjective statement. It is like asking how many times
you have to slap your wife before you are considered a wife beater.
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 10:53 -0700, Robison, Dave wrote:
All this bike shedding and crosstalk has produced far more pointless
email than all the spam I've gotten from this list in the last month.
I don't know if those mails where pointless, but there were much mails
and I only read two or three
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:53:39AM -0700, Robison, Dave wrote:
This has gotten to the point of the ridiculous now. Comparing a few spam to
wife beating and serial killers? That's just patently offensive, quite
frankly.
All this bike shedding and crosstalk has produced far more pointless
On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep spam out.
There have been some discussions about this in the past.
freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may be
unfamiliar with mailing lists being put off
Bruce Cran wrote:
On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep spam out.
There have been some discussions about this in the past.
freebsd-questions doesn't require subscribing to avoid people who may be
unfamiliar with
Hi,
On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:05:33 +0100
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote:
On 11/05/2013 02:34, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep
spam out.
There have been some discussions about this in the past.
freebsd-questions doesn't require
On May 14, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Da Rock
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote:
I'm a big fan of _not_ having to subscribe to a list to get a quick hand with
a one off problem (obviously not this one!)- otherwise too many lists get
subscribed to, oodles of messages come in which
On 05/12/13 22:04, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Restricting mailing lists to subscribers only has been a best
practice since the last century. It's a very good anti-spam tactic.
2. However, doing so -- for a list run via Mailman, like this one --
does not pose a significant impediment for
domain.
But I use the same From: address.
I switched my email address on this list because Insight Cable, but I believe
not Time Warner Cable, uses synacor.com for spam filtering, and messages are
deleted when synacor.com's software flags it as spam, and there were false
positives resulting
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Hi,
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
- List could silently discard such spam.
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:39:31 +0100
Steve O'Hara-Smith articulated:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Hi,
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was
1. Restricting mailing lists to subscribers only has been a best
practice since the last century. It's a very good anti-spam tactic.
2. However, doing so -- for a list run via Mailman, like this one --
does not pose a significant impediment for non-subscribers. By default,
Mailman will hold
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
- List could silently discard such spam.
- Postmaster@ ( webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less work.
- Less individual need to select spam
Hi,
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
- List could silently discard such spam.
- Postmaster@ ( webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less work.
- Less
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com
wrote:
Hi questions@ ( spammer not cc'd )
Reference:
From: Aaron Seligman aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
Reply-to: aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:59:07
I'm curious how much spam you get through this list.
Just counted, and I have about 2 Spams per week for the last month,
that's more than usual.
Personaly I'm on ~ 47 freebsd lists or so my MH dirs + procmail
filter boxes suggest, so when someone spams multiple lists with the
same spam it
Hi,
From: Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:33:47 +0700
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
some lists are
Hi questions@ ( spammer not cc'd )
Reference:
From: Aaron Seligman aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
Reply-to: aselig...@altitudedigitalpartners.com
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:59:07 + (UTC)
Subject: Re: Display Video Campaigns-Inventory Needed
Message-id:
Most of the spam I've seen get through is actually obvious from the
subject line. I've seen more posts by people who weren't subscribed and
asked to be cc'd than I've seen spam. Making the list subscribers only
would only hinder the the lucky spammers, and stop more people genuinely
asking
Hi,
On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:
some lists are like this anyway. Why are not all like this?
I notice that my postings get delayed and obviously check when I use
by accident my real e-mail
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone knew of a good howto, or some tips for
filtering spam using dspam in a setup where virtual users (various
domains) are stored in LDAP. Currently we hand off email to dspam in the
filter stage and dspam hands it back into postfix as lmtp, the problem
with this
J. Johnston wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone knew of a good howto, or some tips for
filtering spam using dspam in a setup where virtual users (various
domains) are stored in LDAP. Currently we hand off email to dspam in
the filter stage and dspam hands it back into postfix as lmtp,
My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up
in an Courier imap directories.
I'm thinking of going with something like SpamBouncer (procmail filter).
Anyone use that before? Any other spam filtering that might work better
with this setup
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 04:54:22PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up in
an Courier imap directories.
I'm thinking of going with something like SpamBouncer (procmail filter).
Anyone use that before? Any other spam
My setup is basically everything gets pumped though procmail and ends up
in an Courier imap directories.
I am using SpamAssassin (from the ports) inside procmail that
quarantine every suspect messages and send a daily summary:
http://www.cs.ait.ac.th/laboratory/email/quarantine.shtml
Best
Hi everybody,
hope every1 doing fine well i m using QMAIL for email services. I have also
installed SPAM ASSASINS while installing Qmail. Now i m getting too much
SPAM in every mailbox of my domain.
Kindly help me out and tell me what shld i do. which spam filter is should
use and how to
On Wednesday May 30, 2007 at 07:34:35 (AM) DeadMan Xia wrote:
hope every1 doing fine well i m using QMAIL for email services. I have also
installed SPAM ASSASINS while installing Qmail. Now i m getting too much
SPAM in every mailbox of my domain.
Kindly help me out and tell me what
35 matches
Mail list logo
