Blazing Fast Slap ya twice for ya know it JH wrote:
> A word of advice, though: your rants would be a great deal
> more impressive and might actually generate some respect for
> your opinions if they displayed a greater degree of
> sophistication than that possessed by an average seventh-gra
mouss wrote:
>> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so
>> that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
>
> which doesn't help, because if I get mail claiming to come "From:
> ", yet it doesn't have a sig of mine, I don't
> really care if some fancy mailman owner h
Bill Landry a écrit :
>> Bill Landry a écrit :
>>> Res wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who exp
> Bill Landry a écrit :
>> Res wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>>
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
> people involved in
RW a écrit :
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> mouss wrote:
>
>
>> I am not as convinced as you:
>>
>> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
>> back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
>> this may cause problems. I agree that many lis
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Last time I looked, Justin ran this list, not you.
you, and if Justin has a problem with it _he_ can take care of it.
Exactly.
A word of advice, though: your rants would be a great deal more impressive
Errr, I'm not here to impress anyone
and mi
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
What, and not have the delight of showing you for the sook and demanding
whiner that you are? not a chance :)
David Gibbs a écrit :
> Bill Landry wrote:
>> This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
>> sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
>> list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
>> signed the message.
>
> As I
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
A killfile. That would be the place to put "cry babies" wouldn't it?
Good idea. Glad you thought of it. Go do it. Add me while you're at it.
Sorry dont use em, I save sooks like you for rainy weekends so i can have
more fun when I'm bored.
--
Res
Bill Landry a écrit :
> Res wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
people involved in OSSP's to
Jason Haar wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is not "it's porn? therefore SA
should detect it"
Well as my second sentence said - there is ALREADY a rule in
72_active.cf that detects this. That's
John Rudd wrote:
> I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
> it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is not "it's porn? therefore SA
> should detect it"
>
Well as my second sentence said - there is ALREADY a rule in
72_active.cf that detects this. That's all Andy was
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 15:43, Jason Haar wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
>>
> Yes it is. If it's unsolicited - then it's spam.
I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
>
Yes it is. If it's unsolicited - then it's spam. By that logic, there
should be no textual regex rules - SA should only use RBLs and Bayes.
BTW, the originator was referring to changing an existing official rule
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Andy Dorman wrote:
> However, I was a little surprised that SpamAssassin did not have a test for
> a phrase in the subject that seemed to clearly indicate potential child porn
> like "girls getting f**ked".
SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
Many thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Martin
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 15:13 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > Now I'd like to configure the database configuration details from a .cf
> > file, preferably the one containing the associated SA rule, so is there
>
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Now I'd like to configure the database configuration details from a .cf
file, preferably the one containing the associated SA rule, so is there
a recommended way of doing this?
The "parse_config" plugin method?
Pointers to documentation or examples would be much apprec
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:29:13 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> > mouss wrote:
> > > I am not as convinced as you:
> > >
> > > - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> > > back to the same domain (sender and final recipient i
> > Is the Day Old Bread list a reliable list. I found that their DNS times
> > out a lot of times.
When DOB turned sour last year, I switched to Blaine Fleming's
spameatingmonkey.net. The list is accessible through rsync
and needs to be fed as a zone file to a local DNS.
Contact Blaine for rsync
On Man, Juni 15, 2009 02:59, Chip M. wrote:
> You might want to make some meta rules for those two cases (China
> TLD in a URL, Sender == Recipient).
http://www.nabble.com/postfwd-stop-equal-sender-recipient-spams-td21164908.html
dont waste resources in mta :)
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime
On 14-Jun-2009, at 22:46, LuKreme wrote:
On Jun 14, 2009, at 18:59, "Chip M." wrote:
In all (5) of the hams I found, the IP was in IANA Reserved space
(specifically 192.168.0.0/16).
Most where in reserved space, but by no means all of them.
I checked 2.5 months worth of logs for my most div
> > On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
> >> If that happens then the message is no longer signed by the original
> >> sender, but rather by the mailing list. Probably not a big deal for a
> >> mailing list, but would be in any person-to-person communications.
> Chris Owen wrote:
> >
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> mouss wrote:
> > I am not as convinced as you:
> >
> > - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> > back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
> > this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do break s
23 matches
Mail list logo
