On 02/27/2019 03:25 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
We use some of our domains specifically for email, with no associated
website.
I agree that /requiring/ a website at one of the parent domains
(stopping before traversing into the Public Suffix List) is problematic
and prone to false positives.
* Mike Marynowski:
> Of the 100 last legitimate email domains that have sent me mail, 100%
> of them have working websites at the root domain.
We use some of our domains specifically for email, with no associated
website. Besides, I think the overhead to establish a HTTPS connection
for every
Hi everyone,
I haven't been able to find any existing spam rules or checks that do
this, but from my analysis of ham/spam I'm getting I think this would be
a really great addition. Almost all of the spam emails that are coming
through do not have a working website at the room domain of the
I've gotten many subscription confirmation requests today. These rules are
getting most of them. I don't claim they're particularly good rules. I'm
interested in better options.
http://www.chaosreigns.com/sa/subscriptionflood.txt
On 27 Feb 2019, David Gessel said:
>
> check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164
>
> My amateur analysis was summarized in this message
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201711.mbox/browser
Yeah, constantly recreating the factory unconditionally
On 27 Feb 2019, David Gessel told this:
>
> check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164
>
> My amateur analysis was summarized in this message
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201711.mbox/browser
btw, that's not a message, that's a whole mailbox.
check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164
My amateur analysis was summarized in this message
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201711.mbox/browser
On 26/02/2019 19.30, Nix wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2019, n...@esperi.org.uk said:
>
>> On 11 Feb 2019,
