Re: Spam control (was: Let People Find You in Google!)

>There has indeed been a higher spam:ham ratio on this list of late, >however making it subscriber-only won't help. The crims need only >spoof the address of someone subscribed to the list to bypass that, >and I suspect a few spammers have registered using false addresses >anyway (leading to a bou

Spam control (was: Let People Find You in Google!)

On 06/09/2013 11:21, Jerry wrote: On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:32:39 +0100 Graham Todd articulated: Isn't this pure SPAM? Why yes it is. Would you prefer it mixed with non-spam to make it more palatable? Seriously, the ration of spam to non-spam is increasing exponentially on this list. Unti

Re: List Spam Filtering

l, unless the reluctant subscriber is running an incorrectly > > > configured MTA, I don't see a problem with "backscatter". Now, if > > > they do have a maladjusted MTA, they have more problems then just > > > subscribing to a list. > > > > Out

Re: List Spam Filtering

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 crosstal

Re: List Spam Filtering

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

Re: List Spam Filtering

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 a

Re: List Spam Filtering

so the likelyhood that reluctant subscribers are less > > > likely to take care about avoiding various types of backscatter. > > > > Well, unless the reluctant subscriber is running an incorrectly > > configured MTA, I don't see a problem with "backscatter". Now

Re: List Spam Filtering

. > > Well, unless the reluctant subscriber is running an incorrectly > configured MTA, I don't see a problem with "backscatter". Now, if they > do have a maladjusted MTA, they have more problems then just > subscribing to a list. Out of Office replies, sieve rejects,

Re: List Spam Filtering

be 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 here. All that the present system does is act as an > > > enabler for Spam merchants and Trol

Re: List Spam Filtering

possess the necessary skills > > to install and run FreeBSD to begin with. Lets be honest here. All > > that the present system does is act as an enabler for Spam > > merchants and Trolls. > > Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of people who post messages > "P

Re: List Spam Filtering

. All that the present system does is act as an enabler for Spam merchants and Trolls. Yes, seriously. Have you seen the number of people who post messages "PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!!", apparently not understanding how to manage their subscription? --

Re: List Spam Filtering

cases where interested individuals send traffic sporadically. I've also found it quite useful to note the email addresses of obvious spammers and block them at the MTA, because they'll often step through *all* the mailing lists sequentially and it becomes tedious to discard the same spam ove

Re: List Spam Filtering

al 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 here. All that the present system does is act as an enabler for Spam

Re: List Spam Filtering

Hi, On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:05:33 +0100 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. > free

Re: List Spam Filtering

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 peo

Re: List Spam Filtering

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 bei

Re: List Spam Filtering

ing about > and so forth (so its not simply just a matter of subscribe, unsubscribe as > noted). Unfortunately, many see it as a spam filter and thereby abuse it. How > often do you need help with an issue with libreoffice, mozilla whatever, or > other application? And yet subscrip

Re: List Spam Filtering

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 imp

Re: List Spam Filtering

ail addresses will be in twc.com 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 the

Re: List Spam Filtering

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, Ma

Re: List Spam Filtering

;Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > > > > > > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only: > > > > - List could silently discard such spam. > > > > - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have > > > > less w

Re: List Spam Filtering

On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > Hi, > "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote: > > On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200 > > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > > > > If list write access was changed

Re: List Spam Filtering

> 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 multip

Re: List Spam Filtering

Only: - List could silently discard such spam. - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less work. - Less individual need to select spam phrases to copy to personal filters (& less time searching WTF dialect American above meant in English ;-). Newbies wou

Re: List Spam Filtering

Hi, "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote: > On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200 > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only: > > - List could silently discard such spam. > > - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@

Re: List Spam Filtering

On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" 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 s

Re: List Spam Filtering

t; > some lists are like this anyway. Why are not all like this? Good question. I don't know why. I wish all were, it would keep spam out. To allow a free-er environment for us than that might first give: Taking the syntax of majordomo as an example to illustrate an idea in (I

Re: List Spam Filtering

Hi, On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" 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 address. Eric

Re: List Spam Filtering

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

List Spam Filtering

lt;1368039547.0568389241738...@mf7.sendgrid.net> > Happy hump-day, > > We have an opportunity with an RTB partner to monetize > > INT Geo's; UK, CAN, AUS > > Video: (Pre-roll, mid-roll and post-roll) If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only:

Re: Don't replay to spam

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote: On 03/23/2013 01:20 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: The original "trying freeBSD 9.1 [...]" mail is spam, since the original message had a "signature" about face lifting or something like that. Take a look at http://lists.freebsd.o

Re: Don't replay to spam

On 03/23/2013 01:20 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > The original "trying freeBSD 9.1 [...]" mail is spam, since the original > message had a "signature" about face lifting or something like that. > > Take a look at > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questio

Don't replay to spam

The original "trying freeBSD 9.1 [...]" mail is spam, since the original message had a "signature" about face lifting or something like that. Take a look at http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-March/249992.html Once you visited the page from the link i

Re: SPAM: Re: ZFS root, error 2 when mounting root

On 02/26/2013 04:31 PM, Chad M Stewart wrote: I've been down this road recently with 9.1-release. I ended up adding these lines to end of my script ## The next two are "hacks" in my book, without the last line, on reboot ## it gets stuck trying to find zfs:zroot/ROOT, but somehow the -f or r

Re: SPAM: Re: ZFS root, error 2 when mounting root

I've been down this road recently with 9.1-release. I ended up adding these lines to end of my script ## The next two are "hacks" in my book, without the last line, on reboot ## it gets stuck trying to find zfs:zroot/ROOT, but somehow the -f or reboot "fixes" # this quirk zpool export zroot z

Re: SPAM: Re: ZFS root, error 2 when mounting root

On 02/25/2013 10:00 am, bw wrote: That was my understanding, too, but the instructions on the wiki say there's no need to copy the cache file. In fact, there is no cache file to copy, since the pool is created with zpool create -o altroot=/mnt -O canmount=off zroot mirror /dev/gpt/g0zfs /de

Re: SPAM-flag on FBSD list

FreeBSD emailing lists are not spammers, though they let some spams through that their filters miss. Insight Cable uses synacor.com spam-filtering (dis)service that the Insight Cable user can't turn off. This remedy is worse than the disease in my case because it causes bounces, and th

Re: SPAM-flag on FBSD list

r, which I just paste > > > > Old-X-HE-Spam-Score: -2.3 > > Old-X-HE-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-2.3 points) > > pts rule name description > > -- > > -- -2

Re: SPAM-flag on FBSD list

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:48:06PM +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > > Hello, > > while testing a new mail configuration on freebsd-test@, I noticed a > very interesting part in the header, which I just paste > > Old-X-HE-Spam-Score: -2.3 > Old-X-HE-Spam-Report:

SPAM-flag on FBSD list

Hello, while testing a new mail configuration on freebsd-test@, I noticed a very interesting part in the header, which I just paste Old-X-HE-Spam-Score: -2.3 Old-X-HE-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-2.3 points) pts rule name description

OT: Spam - Was: Re: HI

Please don't reply to spam, since this makes it harder to detect spam by software. Happy New Year! Ralf PS: I've broken the thread intendedly. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd

Re: Spam and more spam

y not. The reason for the open list is that questions@ has been given as a support address in documents, and some feel that should remain open. Should we move to a list where only registered users can write just to avoid the spam problem and not forcing a human to approve all e-mails from addr

Spam and more spam

ail address, it worked. Should we move to a list where only registered users can write just to avoid the spam problem and not forcing a human to approve all e-mails from addresses which are not registered? Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma

Re: Spam and more spam.

oze computer. > my daughter was given an old [1998] w2k box that she played games on. > it is long-gone:) you do not even know then what these people go through. > > > > Let me see what you got. > > > > yup, exactly. these sorry, pathetic guys see an ea

Re: Spam and more spam.

!] email. if > > you can gleen anything from it, excellent. I get other *non*-8859 > > iso encoded email. {Note that I still use mutt as my mua. > > until all this spam, I did not know that mutt could even render non- > > Latin characters. > > Let me see w

Re: Spam and more spam.

t; you can gleen anything from it, excellent. I get other *non*-8859 > iso encoded email. {Note that I still use mutt as my mua. > until all this spam, I did not know that mutt could even render non- > Latin characters. Let me see what you got. > for my appending the spam

Re: Spam and more spam.

ers below. but at the bottom of this email I will enclose an arabic [i think!] email. if you can gleen anything from it, excellent. I get other *non*-8859 iso encoded email. {Note that I still use mutt as my mua. until all this spam, I did not know that mutt could e

Re: Spam and more spam.

passer sur FreeBsd pour sa stabilité et pour sa > > >>>sécurité,, je vois qu'actuellement il y une 9 rc1, pourriez vous > > >>>s'il vous plait me dire quelle la prochaine release à venir et sa > > >>>date de sortie > &

Re: Spam and more spam.

ez vous > >>>s'il vous plait me dire quelle la prochaine release à venir et sa > >>>date de sortie > >>http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.1R/schedule.html > >> > >>PS. This is an English-speaking mailing list. > > > >I wonder how many pe

Re: Spam and more spam.

Hi Al, On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:06:11 -1000 Al Plant wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > I wonder how many people did what I did an classified this as spam. > > Aloha Erich, > my wife loves you. This is for sure. Why? She loves your place. > I'm getting SPAM on the

Re: Spam and more spam.

t I did an classified this as spam. Erich ___ Aloha Erich, I'm getting SPAM on the FreeBSD list for a couple of days now. In several languages including Chinese and French as well as English. Doesnt our list have a way to block so much of t

Re: [spam] Equine Vaccines offered by Santa Cruz

Anyone offended by this spam to the mailing-list is strongly encouraged to call the company to complain -- TOLL FREE numbers are: U.S.A. 1-800-457-3801 (headquarters) Europe +00800 4573 8000(Germany) Asia (010) 800.40402026 (Japan) Asia 00798.1.1.002.0297 (S

Re: [Spam] Fw: Merry Christmas from the FreeBSD Security Team

--As of December 23, 2011 5:45:42 PM +0100, Bas Smeelen is alleged to have said: While I'm writing, a note to freebsd-update users: FreeBSD-SA-11:07.chroot has a rather messy fix involving adding a new interface to libc; this has the awkward side effect of causing the sizes of some "symbols" (a

Re: {SPAM} New games for you

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sun Jun 19 06:38:27 2011 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:38:05 -0400 > From: Jerry > To: FreeBSD > Subject: Re: {SPAM} New games for you > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 04:52:15 -0500 (CDT) > Robert Bonomi articulated: > > > Anyb

Re: {SPAM} New games for you

On 19/06/2011 12:38, Jerry wrote: Interestingly enough, WOT rates that site "very poor" and displays a warning when it is visited. I suspect some people like reporting sites as bad. Mine was reported as "not safe: has the trojan virus" and I had to ask Norton to re-che

Re: {SPAM} New games for you

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 04:52:15 -0500 (CDT) Robert Bonomi articulated: > Anybody running procmail who is tired of this Netlog cr*p (thanks to > one Elias Shashati, who subscribed the questions mailing list to > their service) is welcome to use the procmail recipe that I have > posted at:

Re: {SPAM} New games for you

rom owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sun Jun 19 01:09:13 2011 > From: Netlog > To: Elias Shashati > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 06:07:46 + > Subject: New games for you > > Hi Elias! Try out these new games! > > [[ sneck spam content ]] > _

Re: ipv6 spam

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Robert Simmons wrote: I have begun receiving ipv6 spam from this mailing list, and I was > wondering how to determine who the owner of a particular ipv6 address > is. A whois may tell you who the block has been given too (ISP wise) ... that may start you

ipv6 spam

I have begun receiving ipv6 spam from this mailing list, and I was wondering how to determine who the owner of a particular ipv6 address is. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To

Re: spam?

ure too long' :) I can't > imagine why they or their robot might have taken offense. At least at > lists.freebsd.org only something pretty extreme may provoke our esteemed > postmaster into removing a message, and there's less obfuscation there > of email addresses (like pa

Re: spam?

In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 353, Issue 11, Message: 4 On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:57:03 + Bruce Cran wrote: > On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 06:49 -0500, ajtiM wrote: > > In the last week I got four emails like this one today: > > > > From: mailto:br...@cran.org.uk";>br...@cran.org.uk > > To: mai

Re: spam?

On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 06:49 -0500, ajtiM wrote: > In the last week I got four emails like this one today: > > From: mailto:br...@cran.org.uk";>br...@cran.org.uk > To: mailto:per...@pluto.rain.com";>per...@pluto.rain.com > CC: mailto:free...@edvax.de";>free...@edvax.de, href="mailto:lum...@gmail.c

spam?

In the last week I got four emails like this one today: From: mailto:br...@cran.org.uk";>br...@cran.org.uk To: mailto:per...@pluto.rain.com";>per...@pluto.rain.com CC: mailto:free...@edvax.de";>free...@edvax.de, mailto:lum...@gmail.com";>lum...@gmail.com, mailto:freebsd- questi...@freebsd.org">fre

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

> > > > Original Message >From: elb...@gmail.com >To: ggat...@waddell.com >Subject: Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?) >Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:43:12 + > >>On 28/01/11 16:07, Gary Gatten wrote: >>> >>Oh dear.

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

> > I came from my mother, just as you came from yours. I am not sorry you > are unable to accept that my opinion differs from yours, and I hope that > we resolve this. I came from a test tube. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://list

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

On 28/01/11 16:07, Gary Gatten wrote: > Oh dear. > OMFG... how much longer are "we" going to keep commenting on this > worthless thread? Hmm. Worthless... without value... an entity lacking substance. Hmm. This thread was started by me. Now let me see, yes, I still have my arms and legs. Whi

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

Hi, > OMFG... how much longer are "we" going to keep commenting on this > worthless thread? And now the debian list too? That's great... Agreed :-) Debian list dropped as cross posting bad. Individual cc's dropped as one is the troll, & other don't need copies. For those new to this FreeBSD lis

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

LIST* wants to read your words, we no longer care about your opinion or what it means because you clearly don't care about our opinion for you to change the subject and get on a topic for this list. Speaking of topics ... just because a mailing list is open for you to send mail to DOES NOT MEAN

Re: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

On 28/01/11 16:15, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> From elb...@gmail.com Fri Jan 28 08:59:21 2011 >>> On 28/01/11 12:28, Robert Bonomi wrote: >>>> see: <http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/rulesofspam.shtmld> >>> Rule #0: Spam is theft. >> Mail servers are o

RE: Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

OMFG... how much longer are "we" going to keep commenting on this worthless thread? And now the debian list too? That's great... Dear Hijacker: You are the superior one, all others are inferior. You are right, all others are wrong. Please go away. Perhaps preach your "wisdom" to a more r

Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)

ugh. > Further to my email earlier, I present to you my logical analysis of your link, analysed by item: > Rule #0: Spam is theft. Mail servers are offering a service. If you don't want to receive spam stop offering the service. > Angel's Commentary: Spammers believe it'

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 12/24/10 01:44, Chris Rees wrote: On 23 December 2010 13:57, Da Rock wrote: On 12/23/10 23:16, Chris Rees wrote: On 23 December 2010 11:44, Da Rock wrote: Thanks, but Athlon64 is a 939. Yeah, it may not be worth salvaging, but I thought the cost might be less... I'

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:23:30 +1000 Da Rock wrote: > I know its a little OT, but I'm hunting for a mainboard to plug this > CPU into and build a file server. So the ideal specs are (and maybe > dreaming too :) ): > > 184 pin RAM DIMM > SataIII 4+ ports > Either onboard or AGP Video > 2x Gigabit L

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 23 December 2010 13:57, Da Rock wrote: > On 12/23/10 23:16, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> On 23 December 2010 11:44, Da Rock >>  wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, but Athlon64 is a 939. Yeah, it may not be worth salvaging, but I >>> thought the cost might be less... I'm more than likely wrong. Worth >>>

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 12/23/10 13:57, Da Rock wrote: I've got wholesale contacts, but I was hoping to make use of this spare chip and RAM floating about. Diff would be around $100, so only kinda worth it. It might be worth looking at Intel Atom processor boards or similar, there are plenty of very low power boar

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 12/23/10 23:16, Chris Rees wrote: On 23 December 2010 11:44, Da Rock wrote: Thanks, but Athlon64 is a 939. Yeah, it may not be worth salvaging, but I thought the cost might be less... I'm more than likely wrong. Worth putting feelers out, though :) Athlon64s can be 754, 939 or

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 23 December 2010 11:44, Da Rock wrote: > > Thanks, but Athlon64 is a 939. Yeah, it may not be worth salvaging, but I > thought the cost might be less... I'm more than likely wrong. Worth putting > feelers out, though :) > Athlon64s can be 754, 939 or AM2. Perhaps you meant *your* Athlon64 is

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 12/23/10 21:36, Chris Rees wrote: On 23 December 2010 08:23, Da Rock wrote: I know its a little OT, but I'm hunting for a mainboard to plug this CPU into and build a file server. So the ideal specs are (and maybe dreaming too :) ): 184 pin RAM DIMM SataIII 4+ ports Either onboard or AG

Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

On 23 December 2010 08:23, Da Rock wrote: > I know its a little OT, but I'm hunting for a mainboard to plug this CPU > into and build a file server. So the ideal specs are (and maybe dreaming too > :) ): > > 184 pin RAM DIMM > SataIII 4+ ports > Either onboard or AGP Video > 2x Gigabit LAN > > Obv

AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

I know its a little OT, but I'm hunting for a mainboard to plug this CPU into and build a file server. So the ideal specs are (and maybe dreaming too :) ): 184 pin RAM DIMM SataIII 4+ ports Either onboard or AGP Video 2x Gigabit LAN Obviously I don't need much RAM, just juice the throughput fr

AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :)

I know its a little OT, but I'm hunting for a mainboard to plug this CPU into and build a file server. So the ideal specs are (and maybe dreaming too :) ): 184 pin RAM DIMM SataIII 4+ ports Either onboard or AGP Video 2x Gigabit LAN Obviously I don't need much RAM, just juice the throughput fr

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

2010-12-16 19:59, Sven Skogen (List mail account): On 16.12.2010 19:56, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2010-12-16 12:40, Michelle Konzack: Hello *, does someone get this kind of spam too? No, nothing from the ip-range 69.170.128.0/24 is getting thru. I actually have a very specific route, just for

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

On 16.12.2010 19:56, Bernt Hansson wrote: > 2010-12-16 12:40, Michelle Konzack: >> Hello *, >> >> does someone get this kind of spam too? > > No, nothing from the ip-range 69.170.128.0/24 is getting thru. I actually have a very specific route, just for them, in m

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

2010-12-16 12:40, Michelle Konzack: Hello *, does someone get this kind of spam too? No, nothing from the ip-range 69.170.128.0/24 is getting thru. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack - Forwarded message from freebsd-questions@freebsd.org - Date: Mon, 15

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:40:35PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Hello *, > > does someone get this kind of spam too? Yes. Lots of it from various lists and other paths. Just delete it. jerry > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack &g

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

Re: freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 341, Issue 6, Message: 27 On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:44:09 + Bruce Cran wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:40:35 +0100 > Michelle Konzack wrote: > > > does someone get this kind of spam too? > > Yes, lots of people have been getting

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

Yes, I'm too! Spam from the list! On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Michelle Konzack < bsd4miche...@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: > Hello *, > > does someone get this kind of spam too? > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening >Michelle Konzack > > - Forwa

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

nzack" wrote: > Hello *, > > does someone get this kind of spam too? > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack > > - Forwarded message from freebsd-questions@freebsd.org - > > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:55:59 +1100 > From: freebsd-q

Re: Spam with fake address from the list?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:40:35 +0100 Michelle Konzack wrote: > does someone get this kind of spam too? Yes, lots of people have been getting that for a few months. parklogic claim there's not anything they can do about it despite it apparently coming from their servers. -- Br

Spam with fake address from the list?

Hello *, does someone get this kind of spam too? Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack - Forwarded message from freebsd-questions@freebsd.org - Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:55:59 +1100 From: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org To: Michelle Konzack Subject: Re: Why do you

Re: xpbargains.net spam [was: Re: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)']

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:30:19 -0500, Chris Brennan wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Bruce Cran wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:41:48 -0500 > > Chris Brennan wrote: > > > > > Does GMail provide access to the full headers? > > > > Click the down arrow and select "Show original

Re: xpbargains.net spam [was: Re: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)']

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:41:48 -0500 > Chris Brennan wrote: > > > Does GMail provide access to the full headers? > > Click the down arrow and select "Show original". > > -- > Bruce Cran > Awesome! Thanks Bruce. Now I can put what Ian provided

Re: xpbargains.net spam [was: Re: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)']

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:41:48 -0500 Chris Brennan wrote: > Does GMail provide access to the full headers? Click the down arrow and select "Show original". -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li

Re: xpbargains.net spam [was: Re: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)']

toChris Brennan > ccFreeBSD-Questions , Mark > dateMon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:30 AM > subjectRe: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)' The above header just arrived as I was typing this so I thought it an excellent example. Obviously, I've masked

Re: THE SPAM WE GET [stop fretting and read]

email addresses has happened for years, and with this list's archives being publicly available online it's been happening for a while and will continue to happen until the rules may or may not be changed. -- Ryan If this discussion is about the same wave of spam I've been getting

THE SPAM WE GET [stop fretting and read]

>> On 12/10/10, Chris Brennan wrote: >>> Umm... what's the dea w/ this? More spam? >> >> Not my spam. >> >> If you still think that I actually really send this to you I can not help >> you. >> > > Well no Paul, I wasn't blam

xpbargains.net spam [was: Re: 'Broadcom Wireless b/g (BCM4315/BCM22062000)']

In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 340, Issue 11, Message: 27 On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:54:37 -0500 > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: No, he didn't. These mails are FORGED as being from freebsd-questions participants, and on first glance may appear to be list postings. They us

Re: My mail server flagged spam!

Marwan Sultan writes: > Hello list.. > > Well! im kinda lost here.. > I have like 8 domains hosted in my server. FreeBSD 7.2R, (...) > I have few customers complaining that thier emails (...) > Anyhints please? Well, i think you should move to Google Apps. It's very safe, reliable. And

RE: My mail server flagged spam!

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Oct 23 17:45:25 2010 > From: Marwan Sultan > To: > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:46:40 + > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: RE: My mail server flagged spam! > > > Dear Dr. Matthew.=2C > =20 >When my client or a

Re: My mail server flagged spam!

y itself trust its own internal dynamic IP networks. You may trust them not to be a spam source but putting them into your internal_networks list would create a false positive because then those dynamic IPs would be searched for in the DUL lists. This is an example where the two lists need to be

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >