Am 02.10.2014 um 21:57 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 02.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
not exact what you want , but may help too
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
check_recipient_ns_access type:table
Search the specified access(5) database for the DNS servers for the
jdebert, (since im not reply to the bully troll)
he doesnt learn, worried about flame wars but kicks off by calling
other people smart asses, just ignore him, most of the rest of the
internet has done for a while
On 10/1/14, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 um 18:12
Am 03.10.2014 um 12:56 schrieb Nick Edwards:
jdebert, (since im not reply to the bully troll)
he doesnt learn, worried about flame wars but kicks off by calling
other people smart asses, just ignore him, most of the rest of the
internet has done for a while
creep away damned stalker -
I get a lot of these too.
What finally worked for me was setting up greylisting with postgrey.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Googlasi-blacklotus-etc-tp111984p112054.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
thats funny, I could have sworn I replied and addressed to jdebert,
oh lookie, so I did, you just cant help yourself fool, I think we know
who the paranoid delusional stalker is reindl, get help, but no one
here is qualified to give you the help you need, and might i remind
you again dumb fuck, I
Would it be possible for both of you to knock off this juvenile pissing
contest on a public mailing list? Please?
John
--
I for one welcome our new computer overlords.
-- Ken Jennings a former Jeopardy! quiz show champion, writing on his
On 10/3/14 10:46 AM, Nick Edwards nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/14, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 12:56 schrieb Nick Edwards:
May I suggest the two of you either settle this with a machete fight
(offlist!) or by being the bigger person and *not
Oh dear.
Please could you keep your arguments and name-calling off-list? It's not
nice seeing people being so unpleasant.
Thanks!
Anthony
--
www.fonant.com - Quality web sites
Tel. 01903 867 810
Fonant Ltd is registered in England and Wales, company No. 7006596
Registered office: Amelia
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:46 schrieb Nick Edwards:
thats funny, I could have sworn I replied and addressed to jdebert
if you refer to me you are not in the position to decide that
oh lookie, so I did, you just cant help yourself fool, I think we know
who the paranoid delusional stalker is reindl,
On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:19 , Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist:
On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before
reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk-
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:11 schrieb LuKreme:
On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:19 , Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist:
On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before
reply - they lead often
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:21 , Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:11 schrieb LuKreme:
On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:19 , Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist:
On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
please
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
it is the *default* tag for
FYI, this person is banned from some lists for trolling.
Might be worthwhile for list-admin to consider that.
https://www.google.de/search?hl=deas_q=Harald+Reindl+troll
Kai
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:47 schrieb Kai Schaetzl:
FYI, this person is banned from some lists for trolling.
Might be worthwhile for list-admin to consider that.
https://www.google.de/search?hl=deas_q=Harald+Reindl+troll
thank you for your intervention and support of the two
guys which are unhappy
On 10/3/2014 1:47 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
FYI, this person is banned from some lists for trolling.
Might be worthwhile for list-admin to consider that.
https://www.google.de/search?hl=deas_q=Harald+Reindl+troll
As of yet, I've not seen anything that has stepped to that level and
let's focus on
On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before
reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the
list-folder :-)
On 03.10.14 11:11, LuKreme wrote:
You should not be filtering on Subject. Scoring on subject is fine,
Am 03.10.2014 um 21:07 schrieb Nick:
Over the last few months, spamassassin has begun barely working for me
spammers also learn
SPAM is so bad that I've actually started training it - which is something
I've never had to do in the past. So I've collected 370+ e-mails over the
last few
On 10/3/2014 3:07 PM, Nick wrote:
Over the last few months, spamassassin has begun barely working for me. SPAM is
so bad that I've actually started training it - which is something I've never
had to do in the past. So I've collected 370+ e-mails over the last few days,
and had sa-learn
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Nick wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,
HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_PASS,T_REMOTE_IMAGE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
URIBL_BLOCKED = set up a local recursing
Thanks guys, I just trained in 2089 legitimate ham messages, so hopefully that
will do the trick. And also thanks to you John, as I didn't even see that
URIBL_BLOCKED. I've setup a local recursion DNS server, which seems to have
taken care of it. Crossing my fingers that this has a positive
Hi,
I've noticed a trend in which spammers put in a bunch of X- header
purporting to show that a message is good. I've appended sample
headers (slightly obfuscated to hide recipient) below.
I wonder if a test for more than (say) 8 X-* header in
an inbound mail would be a good spam indicator?
On 10/3/2014 3:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed a trend in which spammers put in a bunch of X- header
purporting to show that a message is good. I've appended sample
headers (slightly obfuscated to hide recipient) below.
I wonder if a test for more than (say) 8 X-* header in
an
Am 03.10.2014 um 21:55 schrieb David F. Skoll:
I've noticed a trend in which spammers put in a bunch of X- header
purporting to show that a message is good. I've appended sample
headers (slightly obfuscated to hide recipient) below.
I wonder if a test for more than (say) 8 X-* header in
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:02:59 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
hard to say in general, that are not so much X-Headers
i have seen a lot of spam really tagged with such
headers because some outgoing mailserver had indeed
a spamfilter and the messages did not reach the block
Sorry to follow up on myself, but...
depending on how many hops a mail takes
the number of such headers increases
Yes, so a refinement may be to make the threshold depend in some way
on the number of Received: headers too. This would clearly have to
be an eval() test.
Regards,
David.
Am 03.10.2014 um 22:07 schrieb David F. Skoll:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:02:59 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
hard to say in general, that are not so much X-Headers
i have seen a lot of spam really tagged with such
headers because some outgoing mailserver had indeed
a
On 10/03/2014 09:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Return-Path: americanexpr...@welcome.aexp.com
Received: from mail.com ([190.237.242.198])
interesting...
welcome.aexp.com. 14400 IN TXT v=spf1 mx a
ip4:148.173.96.86 ip4:148.173.96.85 ip4:148.173.91.84 ip4:148.173.91.83
-all
Spammers also learn.
I'm pretty sure some of them read this list. (I sure would if I were a
spammer.)
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/spamassassin-working-very-poorly-tp112068p112080.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 23:16:35 +0200
Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
interesting...
welcome.aexp.com. 14400 IN TXT v=... etc.
Yes, I know all that... none of these spams is actually getting
through.
I just thought the many X-* headers might be a new pattern.
Also, in this
I'm new to SpamAssassin so not sure whether my logs indicate a problem.
I can't be sure, but it looks like all attempts at checking DNS
blacklists are failing.
Running Debian Wheezy SpamAssassin package (v 3.2.2)
spamd is invoked with the following options:
--create-prefs --max-children 5
31 matches
Mail list logo
