On 07.10.13 00:19, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
So I am replacing my MTA... and do not know what to do with the
bayesian DB. Can I move it? If so, how? Ubuntu Linux if it really
matters.
Bayes DB has nothing to yo with MTA, like spamassassin. Replacing MTA does
not require spamassassin-related
On Monday 07 October 2013 at 10:47:20, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 07.10.13 00:19, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
So I am replacing my MTA... and do not know what to do with the
bayesian DB. Can I move it? If so, how? Ubuntu Linux if it really
matters.
Bayes DB has nothing to yo with
On 07.10.13 00:19, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
So I am replacing my MTA... and do not know what to do with the
bayesian DB. Can I move it? If so, how? Ubuntu Linux if it really
matters.
On Monday 07 October 2013 at 10:47:20, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Bayes DB has nothing to yo with MTA,
Mauricio Tavares skrev den 2013-10-07 06:19:
So I am replacing my MTA... and do not know what to do with the
bayesian DB. Can I move it? If so, how? Ubuntu Linux if it really
matters.
it does with ubuntu, sa-learn --help see --backup and --restore
note if you have pr user bayes then its
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-10-07 11:10:
Well, that's why it's better to provide exact information
...still not enough of information provided
unless your MTA sucks, already sayed
On 10/6/2013 7:09 PM, Alex wrote:
I'm using Kevin's KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC rules for the multi.pccc.com
URIBL. Why is it designed to be a poison pill? It caught cvent.com,
causing a bunch of mail to FP.
I'm just curious if this URIBL is indeed this trustworthy, if these
KAM rules are still used,
For those who have asked, the RBL I am testing is included in the rules
from KAM.cf at http://www.pccc.com/downloads/SpamAssassin/contrib/KAM.cf
There will be some new tests coming as I'm working on more tests that
require code changes.
regards,
KAM
Hi Kevin,
I'm using Kevin's KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC rules for the multi.pccc.com
URIBL. Why is it designed to be a poison pill? It caught cvent.com,
causing a bunch of mail to FP.
I'm just curious if this URIBL is indeed this trustworthy, if these
KAM rules are still used, and how it is working
On 10/7/2013 6:18 PM, Alex wrote:
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
I personally received the spam from them from
Hi,
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
Apparently none of the other RBLs consider it spam.
I've asked the list
Hai!
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
Apparently none of the other RBLs consider it spam.
Apparently other
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 19:38 -0400, Alex wrote:
There wasn't really any consensus on the list for this sender either.
I've left them off my blacklist for now, despite seeing messages
pertaining to hair care and gutter cleaning from their customers.
They're also not on any public blocklists.
On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
This is harming more then it does good. But its your list so your
rules ;) I would not want to use it to filter my mails with it but hey
Since this is in its early development, it is probably too early to
judge it too much. But from what I've read
Alex skrev den 2013-10-08 00:18:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
in local.cf
def_whitelist_auth *@cvent.com
or in user-prefs whitelist_auth *@cvent.com
in case its ham, just not both
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/cvent.com
https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/cvent.com
14 matches
Mail list logo
