On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Lucio Chiappetti
wrote:
> I have just found a new kind of spam which went through our spamassassin
> (actually it got a "banned" notification - we quarantine spam and virus but
> let banned be delivered).
>
> The subject was "Delivery reports about your e-mail", th
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Mike Hutchinson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My company attempted to adopt SPF before I started working here. I recall it
> was a recent event when I joined, and I looked into what went wrong (as I
> became the mail administrator not long after). Basically the exact same
>
wow, based on the subject alone, I thought my SA had missed a very strange
spam :)
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Philip A. Prindeville <
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
> I ran "yum update" on my FC11 machine a couple of days ago, and now I'm
> getting nightly cron errors:
>
> plug
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Mikael Syska wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Stephane MAGAND
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Since Jun 2008, he don't have a new version of spamassassin ? the project
>> are dead ?
>
> Are you even reading the mailing list? or 3.3.0 should published soon.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>On ons 16 dec 2009 16:49:52 CET, Charles Gregory wrote
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
> http://www.vintage-computer.com/asr33.shtml
>>>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> R-Elists wrote:
>>
>> just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on
>> our
>> "email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
>>
>> obviously trolling for email addresses
>>
>> would the Constant Contact
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, jdow wrote:
> From: "J.D. Falk"
> Sent: Monday, 2009/November/23 13:37
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> You should complain to ReturnPath. Iirc, HABEAS used to sue spammers
>> misusing their technology. Don't know if ReturnPath
http://basepath.com/aup/ex/ptutil_8c.html
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Computerflake wrote:
>
>
>
>> Directly? No.. SpamAssassin, by itself, is really just a scanning engine
>> with header modification abilities. It does not do email management,
>> quarantines, etc at all. It receives a message, evaluates it, and
>> modifies it based
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>>
>> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
>> > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Warren Togami wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
>>> For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
>>> planet. I'm surprised no one is
>>> testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of bla
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, linuxmagic wrote:
>
> Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions. MagicSpam is
> NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been developing Anti-Spam
> solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for quite some time, focusing on the
> SMTP transa
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > So runs Spamd
> >
> >>> states:
> >
> > /usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 20 -x -q -s stderr -r
> > /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid
> >
> > If I have about 10,000 emails to have less processes
> > SpamD
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez <
jolumape...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sirs
>
> A few moments ago I noticed that SA was not assigned any score for SPAM
> emails, reviewing the log I see this:
>
> *...@40004aba627c21bee88c [25630] info: spamd: got connection over
> /tm
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:21 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 22-Sep-2009, at 14:42, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
>> Also consider the invalument block lists, see
>> http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
>> A very, very good list that is usable for blocking. Not free, but
>> very affor
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez
wrote:
> Dear Sirs.
>
> Thank you for your answers
>
> Qmail-Smtpd have the following RBL configured:
>
> bl.spamcop.net
> cbl.abuseat.org
> combined.njabl.org
Consider zen. It is excellent. Spamcop and NJABL have caused too
many false posi
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:58 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
>
>> I will implement improvements in the configuration suggested and
>> observe the results, however, that more could be suggested to improve
>> my spam service?
>>
> I thin
2009/9/18 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 09:48 +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
>> On 09/19/2009 09:13 AM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
>> > For more than 1 emails a day how much memory should be the server?
>> > as one can calculate the amount of memory needed?
>>
>> 10,000 a day means
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:39 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 14-Aug-2009, at 18:44, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> The Spamhaus Block List 21.87% (6.74%) 18405091
>> The Invaluement SIP Block List 22.14% (5.33%) 14557404
>
>
> What w
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>
>> The comparisons on that page are useless. What matters is list policy,
>> reliability and reputation.
>>
>> SpamHaus is hands down the best dnsbl.
>
> While I certainly agree that SpamHaus
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:07 PM, John Rudd wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 17:54, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM, ktn wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I think Nabble is great for those of us who can't handle the
>>> traffic
>>&
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM, ktn wrote:
>
> Actually I think Nabble is great for those of us who can't handle the traffic
> of the whole mailing list.
>
This list generates less than 50 messages per day on average:
http://gmane.org/plot-rate.php/plot.png?group=gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.g
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:07 AM, snowweb wrote:
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a bit hacked of with this
> 1980's style forum. I'm trying to get to the bottom of an SA issue and this
> list/forum thing is giving me a bigger headache than SA!
>
> Spamassassin has more than one o
+1 for ending this thread
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> From:
> Chris Owen
> To:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc:
> Tara Natanson
> Subject:
> Re:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> In defense of Constant Contact, they are in the business of sending
> out mailings for people, they are not themselves spammers. They
> perform a service and they do it as best they can given the
> circumstances in which they work.
>
arms de
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Mike
Cardwell wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
>> I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
>> these domains, so why waste time looking them up
>
> m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> con
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:11 AM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating ab
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>
> --j.
>
>From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
qualify as spam by the common definition. It is, howe
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
Could you share your IP list? I'd like to block these clowns too (and
I'm lazy).
>
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:06 AM, McDonald, Dan
wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:14 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
>> Greetings.
>> I'm thinking of implementing:
>> - greylisting
>
> very effective. I cut my incoming mail by about 80% when we put up
> greylisting. I'm using sqlgrey.
>
>> -
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> option8 wrote:
>>
>> on my small server setup, i host around 30 domains. between SA and a
>> fairly
>> aggressive exim setup, very little spam gets through to the end users.
>> most
>> of it doesn't even get far enough to hit my logs.
>>
>>
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM, DAve wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> My blacklist hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com is rising in the charts. Here's
>> a blacklist comparison chart.
>>
>> http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
>>
>
> Those results differ wildly with my stats ove
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:32 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 2-Apr-2009, at 15:56, Evan Platt wrote:
>>
>> I logged into our server, and saw the OpenDNS was resolving EVERYTHING -
>> blah.blah , nothing.nothing, etc.
>
> This is not a OpenDNS problem, this is a problem with the know-nothing who
> set it up
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:max...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
> To: hlug090...@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
> Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
>
>> Err no.
>>
>> spamhaus is g
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
wrote:
> RobertH wrote:
>
>> there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want
>> to
>> participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
>>
>> some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
>> and
;m seriously considering changing them to 1.0, 0.01, and 0, respectively.
>> >
>> > I seem to ONLY see the headers in spam messages. It's a shame the defaults
>> > in SA are still set absurd values.
>
> On 17.03.09 02:25, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>> Funny, I mentioned t
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
>>
>> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
>> Better
>> [208.82.16.109 listed in
>
>
> I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Steve Freegard wrote:
>
>> 5) Privacy concerns; potentially a domains entire mail stream for the
>> last 5 days could be held on your mail spool. This has obvious privacy
>> implications for most people particularly as th
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
wrote:
>>By any chance, didn't your ISP start "providing search service" for any
>>web name that does not exist?
>
> btw, whats the workaround for this? opendns didnt work for me as they have
> similar "features".
supposedly these can be
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Arthur Dent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:08:32PM -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote:
>> I just tried again with this 1.5.2 version and on box it times out querying
>> and on another it seems to run but no hits again. Both my boxes are SA3.2.5.
>>
>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Rick Macdougall wrote:
>>
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Aaron, that is a good point. But I'm running Exim and I think I
>>> can code it so that it will not generate backscatter. I'll have to design
>>> tha
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tell me if you think this is a good idea.
>
> I'm thinking about offering a free MX backup service that people without
> backup servers can use. I'm thinking about doing this as a way of promoting
> my spam filtering business
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
>>> this DNSBL? For example, how does it compar
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anybody have any experience with this product?
>
It appears *noone* has any experience with it... Google finds only 2
links and they are on the company's own homepage.
> My company wants to replace SpamAssassin with this product,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
>
> I resisted answering at first, because I'm perhaps a bit too cynical:
>
> The way to appe
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:59 PM, RobertH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> It was explained somewhere earlier in the thread that he sometim
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:59 PM, RobertH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, the code works for me. If someone has a better solution I'll
>> switch to yours. I just created it because I needed it and thought I'd
>> share it with others who might need it. But if any of you want to
>> improve i
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ken A wrote:
>>
>> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>>
>>> * Ken A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
> How? He tempfails all mails.
Are you asking how sending your customer, or company email off someplace
you don't co
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Jean-Paul Natola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm launching a free spam reduction service to help build up my
> blacklists. It involves adding a fake high numbered MX record to your
> existing MX list that points to one of our servers. We always r
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jared Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The product I've been working with allows th user to set Rejection and
> Deletion thresholds, at which a message identified as spam will be rejected
> with "550 - Message is Spam" etc., or accepted with "250 OK" bu
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:44 PM, John Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> If you just want IPs, maybe instead of running an SMTP service that 450s,
> > you would want to use a packet filter like iptables instead. You could get
>
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>
> > DAve wrote:
> >
> > > Marc Perkel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
> > > > and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Daniel Zaugg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John Rudd wrote:
> >
> >> the error is ignored since it has no practical consequence (except
> >> maybe in some unread log file)
> >
> > Unread/unchecked only by half-assed postmasters who aren't worth their
> > s
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nws.charlie wrote:
> > I guess I'm one of the mail admin wannabe's... not by choice, but by
> > inheritance. It was turned over to me with almost zero training or
> > experience. :(
> > I found the initial posts clear, and had
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> A postmaster who doe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mouss wrote:
> > ajx wrote:
> >> It seems your logic is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. By
> >> returning false positives, you're breaking mail gateways that use this
> >> once
> >> useful service. On the contr
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > It seems like relays.ordb.org (long dead) has started returning
> > positive answers for *all* IPs.
> > Today I've had several clients with old configs
It seems like relays.ordb.org (long dead) has started returning
positive answers for *all* IPs.
Today I've had several clients with old configs which still had this
RBL in them suddenly start blocking everything.
Is this a new thing? Maybe the maintainers were tired of all the queries.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Henrik K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:17:07AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > My hostkarma black/white/yellow lists were too complex to be accessed by
> > Postfix. So I have created a Postfix compatible blacklist
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > > I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
> > > to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user
> being
> > > fickle, its a
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Henrik K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 03:00:49PM -0500, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Marc Perkel wrote:
> > > > It appears
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
> > It appears that Postfix only does DNS blacklists and not whitelists
> > then. I was going to publish my whitelist and Postfix instructions but I
> > guess I can't do that.
>
> That would be a better
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Radich wrote:
> > Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
> &
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Radich wrote:
> > Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
> >
> > MX records I'm saying as follows:
> > 100 - Real
> > 200 - Real perhaps, as many "real" as you want
> > 300 - Bogus - one that blo
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority."
Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX"
nolisting.org -> "longterm use has yet to yield a
On 10/9/07, R.Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Which spam blacklists do you use in your MTA config. (postfix)
> smptd_client_restrictions
>
> Currently we only use : reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org
>
> We let spamassassin fight the rest of the spam. But the load of spam is
> getting
On 10/9/07, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> R.Smits wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Which spam blacklists do you use in your MTA config. (postfix)
> > smptd_client_restrictions
> >
> > Currently we only use : reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org
> >
> > We let spamassassin fight the rest of the spam.
On 9/10/07, Paul Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> How do you handle Spam surges/DoS attacks? We just had a Spam surge/DoS
> and are looking at ways to better withstand (as best as we can) another
> surge
>
>
> Here is how we start SA:
>
> -c -d -r $PIDFILE -s /var/log/spamd --
On 9/6/07, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Rajkumar S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does any one seeing increasing smtp concurrency for the past couple of
> > weeks? I run couple of (qmail/simscan/spamassassin) mail servers and
> > all experience the same problem. The spam
On 8/27/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Andy Sutton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 12:59 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> I've not run into a single instance where a legit server only tried
> the lowest MX. However, if I did there's a simple solution. If the
> fake lowest MX poin
On 8/22/07, Rense Buijen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot all, it's all clear to me now!
> I though that the trusted networks mean that the message will just be
> passed it it came from that source.
> I didnt know it will skip to the next "Received" IP. Thanks a lot.
>
> One question abo
Just take away the scores for the individual RBLs, and your yellow
list as another RBL, and use metarules to score.
-Aaron
On 8/18/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have what I call a yellow list which is a list of IP addresses of
> hosts like yahoo, google, hotmail, aol, etc tha
On 8/16/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK - it's interesting that of all of you who responded this is the only
> person who is doing it right. I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised that
> so few people are preprocessing their email to reduce the SA load. As we all
> know SA is
On 8/16/07, Dave Mifsud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/08/07 08:45, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> > I agree and have yet another similar setup here. We reject about 80%
> > as well, which helps reduce the load on the servers and on the users
> > who manage their quarantine
On 8/16/07, Matthias Haegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Rudd schrieb:
> > Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> As opposed to preprocessing before using SA to reduce the load. (ie.
> >> using blacklist and whitelist before SA)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I do not.
> >
> > (greet-pause of 5 seconds; zen and dsbl
On 8/15/07, Wil Hatfield - HyperConX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is the biggest problem with "fake" MX records for me. If your
> > primary MX is not available, you will simply lose mail from some
> > senders. It's entirely their "fault" for violating the RFCs but the
> > mail is still
On 8/14/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: fake MX records
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTric
On 8/10/07, Jonn R Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jerry Durand wrote:
> > At 01:28 PM 8/10/2007, Igor Chudov wrote:
> >> I am considering a local deal related to hosting by Comcast cable
> >> (8mbps down, 1 mbps up).
> >>
> >> I am concerned, however, with me sending email and being on comca
78 matches
Mail list logo
