On 4/6/21 6:38 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Not totally clear on the scam as it went no further than saying
“yeah bud, we have the drives, how would you like to pay?”.
I've seen a few where they are asking for samples prior to --
purportedly -- submitting an order.
--
Grant. . . .
unix ||
> On Apr 6, 2021, at 8:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, Kris Deugau wrote:
>
>> John Hardin wrote:
>>> Can anybody explain to me the reason behind the blind "please send us a
>>> quote for your product X" emails? I mean, I know they are somehow a
>>> scam, but I can't
RW writes:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:03:52 -0400
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>
>> You can and probably should report spam to dnswl. In theory HI should
>> have essentially no spam.
>
> I thought that because I've never received a single spam with it, but in
> mass checks it's at 0.23% of spam.
Do
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, Kris Deugau wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Can anybody explain to me the reason behind the blind "please send us a
quote for your product X" emails? I mean, I know they are somehow a
scam, but I can't figure it out how it's supposed to work when the target
isn't a
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:03:52 -0400
Greg Troxel wrote:
> You can and probably should report spam to dnswl. In theory HI should
> have essentially no spam.
I thought that because I've never received a single spam with it, but in
mass checks it's at 0.23% of spam.
It can only do so if report_safe is set to 0. With non-zero
report_safe settings, the original mail is encapsulated as an
attachment inside a wrapper message also including the report. That
wrapper message containing the SA report is "safe" because it is fully
local, the text/plain part won't
On 6 Apr 2021, at 16:19, Steve Dondley wrote:
[...]
It can only do so if report_safe is set to 0. With non-zero
report_safe settings, the original mail is encapsulated as an
attachment inside a wrapper message also including the report. That
wrapper message containing the SA report is "safe"
On 2021-04-06 04:19 PM, Steve Dondley wrote:
It seems to have done so. Thank you.
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
I've recently switched to Roundcube from
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
Ah! I see that option now under the little down arrow next to "Reply
all". My day is made. Thanks!
It seems to have done so. Thank you.
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
I've recently switched to Roundcube from gmail. I didn't see that option
but I think
Den 06-04-2021 kl. 19:23 skrev Bill Cole:
> Because DNSWL has problematic sources,
Depending on the eyes looking at it, for NONE, maybe true? - "These are
legitimate mail servers, but they may also emit spam or have other
issues from time to time."
But there shouldn't be any kind of
On 6 Apr 2021, at 14:55, Steve Dondley wrote:
On 2021-04-06 02:32 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
PLEASE NOTE:
I read the mailing list obsessively and DO NOT NEED (or want) the
extra copies sent when you send both to me and to the list.
Sorry, I still haven't figured out how to properly respond. When
On 2021-04-06 02:55 PM, Steve Dondley wrote:
On 2021-04-06 02:32 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
PLEASE NOTE:
I read the mailing list obsessively and DO NOT NEED (or want) the
extra copies sent when you send both to me and to the list.
Sorry, I still haven't figured out how to properly respond. When I
On 2021-04-06 21:12, Arne Jensen wrote:
Den 06-04-2021 kl. 17:48 skrev Steve Dondley:
I have emails that have been flagged as spam in the past but that are
still getting through, presumably because the servers are on some
DNSWL.
Example:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0
Den 06-04-2021 kl. 17:48 skrev Steve Dondley:
> I have emails that have been flagged as spam in the past but that are
> still getting through, presumably because the servers are on some DNSWL.
>
> Example:
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
>
On 2021-04-06 02:32 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
PLEASE NOTE:
I read the mailing list obsessively and DO NOT NEED (or want) the
extra copies sent when you send both to me and to the list.
Sorry, I still haven't figured out how to properly respond. When I hi
"reply all" it cc's the list and sends to
PLEASE NOTE:
I read the mailing list obsessively and DO NOT NEED (or want) the extra
copies sent when you send both to me and to the list.
On 6 Apr 2021, at 14:17, Steve Dondley wrote:
Can you provide a working example message AND the operative user
prefs?
OK, I was being very stupid. It
Can you provide a working example message AND the operative user prefs?
OK, I was being very stupid. It finally dawned on me that the SA scores
that appeared above the message body and below the headers when spamc
was run without the -R option were SA scores embedded in the message by
the
On 6 Apr 2021, at 12:54, Steve Dondley wrote:
When I run spamc without -R option like this:
spamc -u some_user < some_email
I get the following output:
[...]
However, when I run this command on the same email with the -R command
to get the SA scores only like this:
spamc -R -u
On 6 Apr 2021, at 11:48, Steve Dondley wrote:
I have emails that have been flagged as spam in the past but that are
still getting through, presumably because the servers are on some
DNSWL.
Example:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
When I run spamc without -R option like this:
spamc -u some_user < some_email
I get the following output:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content analysis details: (5.2 points, 5.0 required)
Steve Dondley writes:
> I have emails that have been flagged as spam in the past but that are
> still getting through, presumably because the servers are on some
> DNSWL.
>
> Example:
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
>
On 4/6/21 8:34 AM, John Hardin wrote:
What ticks me off is an unsubscribe link that goes to a javascript-heavy
page and that *won't work* without javascript.
And an unsubscribe link with a huge identifying key on it, yet the
unsubscribe page still asks you to enter your email address...
I have emails that have been flagged as spam in the past but that are
still getting through, presumably because the servers are on some DNSWL.
Example:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I see they are evolving now, using google redirects to google links,
further
hiding.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://sites.google.com/
I've just created local rules to give a few points to several such
constructs ranging from a low-scoring hit on just
John Hardin wrote:
Can anybody explain to me the reason behind the blind "please send us a
quote for your product X" emails? I mean, I know they are somehow a
scam, but I can't figure it out how it's supposed to work when the
target isn't a business...
Most of the examples I've seen are
On 2021-04-06 10:13 a.m., RW wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
Can anybody explain to me the reason behind the blind "please send us
a quote for your product X" emails? I mean, I know they are
somehow a scam, but I can't figure it out how it's supposed to
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 4/5/21 8:41 PM, Peter West wrote:
I’d agree it’s address verification, as with the Unsubscribe link at the
bottom.
I'm of the opinion that if I have any inclining of knowledge of the company
sending the email, and SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass, I'll probably
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> Can anybody explain to me the reason behind the blind "please send us
> a quote for your product X" emails? I mean, I know they are
> somehow a scam, but I can't figure it out how it's supposed to work
> when the target isn't a
An update to this:
On 04.04.21 12:54, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have received spam from:
From: "Linda marry (via Google Drive)"
it wasn't catches because of:
60_whitelist_auth.cf:def_welcomelist_auth *@google.com
Now that users can abuse google.com domain, isn't it time to remove
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 03:29:12 +0200
Christian Tasler wrote:
> Ok, maybe I'll need more than just a hint as I understood mostly
> nothing. I am running said packet install from an internet tutorial.
> I cannot do anything between issuing that command and the printout of
> the error. So how am I
31 matches
Mail list logo
