... continued
As I said in my last mesage. The High MX no quit spambot detectors will
send UDP messages to a receiving server that listens for these messages
and processes them into blacklists.
What I'm doing is just using SOCAT to listen. But doing it right you
might want to use a real
Just looking for some my.cnf example files for SA.
Server has 4 gigs of ram, dual core CPU. What do I want in my my.cnf file?
Thanks in advance.
Need a little help for MySQL users.
I'm running several servers that are using a common MySQL server for
bayes for all the SA servers. What I'm seeing is that MySQL is just
plain unreliable. The database is often corrupted and it does so in a
manner that basically causes SA to hang until it
SM wrote:
At 06:30 16-05-2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm running several servers that are using a common MySQL server for
bayes for all the SA servers. What I'm seeing is that MySQL is just
plain unreliable. The database is often corrupted and it does so in a
manner that basically causes SA
the filters. I don't know if i'm saying it right. Mail does go to my
junk box but i'd like more mail in my junkbox. I do not have full
control over my mail server. Thanks.
On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 11:32 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 09:13:28 Marc Ferguson wrote:
Hi
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 22:10 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Please don't top-post. It makes it much harder to read.
Marc Ferguson wrote:
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
just use spamc and feed a message manually, unless you want to
test your MTA, in which case you need to check the manual
. I'm a
regular user and I'm trying to apply this to my evolution application.
Thanks for any clarification.
Marc F.
ram wrote:
IOn Wed, 2008-05-07 at 08:50 -0700, 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. This is free
and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your highest
numbered
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
To participate all you have to do is set your highest numbered MX to
point to:
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com
Several people have asked me how I'm doing this and can they have my
code to do it themselves. My situation is unique
Kevin Parris wrote:
Well now, if a spambot actually does start recognizing and avoiding his system,
doesn't that mean he wins and the spammer loses?
I would say YES!
You should make an effort to clean it up so that others *can* install it as a
standalone daemon, as I suggested. Why?
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. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record
I was just wondering from those of you who have done it - how to start a
URIBL. I'm guessing the process (simplified) is:
1) Mine messages for links
2) Subtract out anything matching a fairly large white list
So my first question here is - what do most of you used to mine the
links in a
Trying to do something that should be simple. Using sed to remove the
first part of a hostname but not working. I want:
abc.def.com to become def.com
I tried a lot of variations of the following but it's either greedy or
does nothing.
sed -e 's/^.*?[.]//'
Thanks in advance.
Henrik K wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:50:33PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
What I'm looking to do with host name base white lists is use forward
confirmed RDNS to keep certian domain from being accidentally blacklisted.
What's funny is that you already mentioned this a bunch
Jon Armitage wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
sorry Marc, you weren't the first to come up with that idea.
He didn't say that he was, just that he was the first to raise it on
the list.
Jon
It may have been 2001. But at the time I remember saying that all spam
wants you to do something
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2008-04-23 10:48
To: Marc Perkel
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking for hosts to white list
Marc Perkel writes:
Yep - one of the ideas I originated here
that are hitting stuff that other DNSBLs
miss.. and which have low FPs... these are getting more and more rare
these days.
Therefore, I suspect that some of you are letting your weird biases
against Marc (for whatever reason and however much deserved)... cause
you to miss out on a good thing he has
I'm looking for people who are running URI blacklists, but I'm more
interested in your whitelist information. I have an extensive list
myself and looking for partners to swap data with.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, April 22, 2008 23:47, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm looking for people who are running URI blacklists, but I'm more
interested in your whitelist information. I have an extensive list
myself and looking for partners to swap data with.
hell no, dont give idears
stopping spammers from putting in amazon.com,
google.com, yahoo.com, etc. and they can be pretty sure these domains
are whitelisted already by the uribl organizations.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:10AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, April 22, 2008 23:47, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm looking
I've created a public no blacklist DNS list of host names and IP
addresses that should never be blacklisted. Some of them are from my
white list, some from my yellow list, and others are just names and IPs
that you don't want to be on a blacklist. Here's the link that describes
how to use it.
I'm considering a DNS list that would return strings as TXT records that
contain key words that classify the Forward Confirmed rDNS name based on
a number of flags. For example, if the host is yahoo.com it might
contain yellow freemail indicating that it is yellow listed (mixed
ham/spam) and
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
I'm not saying anything positive or negative about the different lists,
but there's a long precedent of doing this type of thing w/ bits in a
standard DNS response. Look at SURBL and URIBL, for example -- a single
response encodes multiple individual list entries, and
Henrik K wrote:
Hello,
I updated my FreeMail plugin with a big list of domains
(http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html).
Try it out:
http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.cf
Pretty good hit ratio here, especially when you add some extra scores like
FREEMAIL_FROM
Henrik K wrote:
Hello,
I updated my FreeMail plugin with a big list of domains
(http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html).
Try it out:
http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.cf
Pretty good hit ratio here, especially when you add some extra scores like
FREEMAIL_FROM
Michael Scheidell wrote:
DNS ADMINS at godaddy need a lesson in RFC's.
host -t mx godaddy.com
godaddy.com mail is handled by 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
godaddy.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.
host -t a smtp.secureserver.net
smtp.secureserver.net is an alias for
SM wrote:
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of
that it works better than other learning
methods. Any info would be appreciated.
Hello
I've only just started using it on a test server, I'll let you know how
I find the results!
CRM114? What's that? Can't quite figure out what it does. Is it a pony? :)
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
[EMAIL
that in the
past when I put ideas in the wiki that other people often pick up on
them and do a better job than me. So - here's the link. Looking for
constructive feedback.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MarcPerkelsExperiments
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
. Either case, till google fixes their network and attitude, we should
blacklist them.
Some people might think you are over reacting
I can only imagine what it would be like trying to control outgoing spam
at Google.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3401
BTW, I appreciate it that you are interested enough in my
black/white/yellow lists that you're writing code for it. If there's
anything you would like me to do on my end to make it easier let me know.
Also, I don't know if you can do this in Postfix or Spam Assassin but my
lists do more than
it.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3401
Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mouss schrieb:
| Does Postfix allow you to use white lists? If so - what's the syntax?
| I'm about to publish my whitelist for Postfix.
|
|
| No. DNSWL offer an rsync access.
That's the exact reason we offer rsync access
Hello Everyone,
My hostkarma black/white/yellow lists were too complex to be accessed by
Postfix. So I have created a Postfix compatible blacklist for those of
you who want to bounce a lot of spam before routing it into SA.
reject_rbl_client blacklist.junkemailfilter.com
If you're using
Postfix allows you to use blacklists as follows:
reject_rbl_client blacklist.junkemailfilter.com
Does Postfix allow you to use white lists? If so - what's the syntax?
I'm about to publish my whitelist for Postfix.
Rob McEwen wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I have 24 hours of data to play with.. at first results seemed
promising. I found over 300,000 hosts that had connected only to my
highest MX and did not issue a quit. But.. of that group:
96.0% are listed on spamhaus (zen, i did not breakdown onto the
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.
MX records I'm saying as follows:
100 - Real
200 - Real perhaps, as many real as you want
300 - Bogus - one
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We issue tcp-reset via iptables and have never heard of any problems.
Doing this also makes connecting servers fail out quickest, instead of
waiting to timeout.
Interesting. How do you do that?
as your primary
MX
nolisting.org - longterm use has yet to yield a single false positive
Marc Perkel - YES - it works... I have had no false positives at all
using this.
I am interested in this technique, and have been for some time. It
seems like every discussion of it leads to a group saying you
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because there is occasionally some server doing something very weird
you might have to open up port 25 one some specific IP who is running
something really dumb. I think I've had to do this only once or
twice. But once you open up port 25
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm using Exim and I have it listening on several IP addresses. If
you aren't using Exim then you'll have to get someone to help you.
defercondition = ${if match{$interface_address}{69.50.231.160}}
You could just point it to a dead IP address
Steve Radich wrote:
What's everyone's opinion on something like:
defermx.domain.com
bogusmx.domain.com
provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the
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 blocks port 25 with tcp reset for example
400 - accept port, logs ip - blacklist (not to be
Let me clarify something about using bogus MX records. Let's assume the
following.
bogus0.domain.com - MX 10
real.domain.com - MX 20
backup.domain.com MX 30
bogus1.domain.com MX 40
bogus2.domain.com MX 50
The host bogus1 and bogus2 are 100% safe and effective. The bogus IPs
can be dead on
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Didn't qmail have a problem if it hit a 'dead' primary mx server first?
Qmail has a problem if it gets a 421 on the lowest MX. But if the lowest
MX is totally dead Qmail is fine with it.
?
2. Has it reduced significantly SPAM?
I'd like to know if it's worth the (little) trouble of setup and
verifying question #1.
Thank you for your time.
[Tom Replied With:]
Isn't that what Marc Perkel had been working on?
I'm sorry if I messed up the name. But I think I'm correct. You
Is there any place to easily query whois information to determine on a
mass scale how old a domain is?
Looking for someone who is familiar with exchange.
Is there a setting in Exchange (asking for someone else) so that mail to
domain.com is routed to say mail.domain.com instead of where the MX
records point?
If so - can you explain it so that I can pass it on?
Thanks in advance
Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi,
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone is noticing an increase in the number of
virus infected computers sending spam? Last month my hostkarma
blacklist had about 700,000 IPs of infected computers. Today it's
1,200,000. I do have some new customers who have
Sorry for the OT question but just need a quick answer from a postfix
expert.
Here's the problem. I run a front end spam filtering service. Email from
the world comes in, I clean it, and send the good email to the original
server. However sometimes because my service is now the primary MX
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry for the OT question but just need a quick answer from a postfix
expert.
Here's the problem. I run a front end spam filtering service. Email from the
world comes in, I clean it, and send the good email to the original server
Bill Randle wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:14 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry for the OT question but just need a quick answer from a postfix
expert.
Here's the problem. I run a front end spam filtering service
Gary V wrote:
Sorry for the OT question but just need a quick answer from a postfix
expert.
Here's the problem. I run a front end spam filtering service. Email from
the world comes in, I clean it, and send the good email to the original
server. However sometimes because my service is now the
postconf -n
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = amavis:[$myhostname]:10024
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
home_mailbox =
Just a thought. I'm wondering if there are any clues the th received
lines that indicate the MTA that might be used for spam detection, or
rather ham detection. Do spammers ever use Exim, Qmail, Postfix?
Peter Smith wrote:
Here's my situation:
server1: mail gateway, runs Spamassassin
server2: multi-purpose server. hosts http, mail boxes, pop/imap, runs
sendmail and Spamassassin.
example.org: my domain. The MX record points to server1, A record points to
server2
The problem with this setup of
Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler wrote:
Comparatively speaking, 6 might be inadequate. I don't know how much of
that scale is really necessary for minimal operation, and how much is
just needed for scalability against DDoS attacks.
I was wondering about how to get a blacklist included in the SA
distribution. I have a blacklist and whitelist that are both very good.
I've been publishing it for about a year now. But I have a few questions.
What are the licensing requirements that I have to give to be included?
I assume it
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I was wondering about how to get a blacklist included in the SA
distribution. I have a blacklist and whitelist that are both very
good. I've been publishing it for about a year now. But I have a few
questions.
What are the licensing requirements
jp wrote:
I just built a new box with the AMD Phenom 9500 processor, gigabyte am2+
motherboard, and 8GB ram (ram is getting cheap!). It was all under $1000
for everything including power supply, cheesy video card, 2 sata drives.
This thing rocks so hard for spamassassin, it's amazing.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
-report?
Ahh, I had to do a razor-admin like this:
su - root
# razor-admin -create
# razor-admin -register
Even though I had done this initially as just 'su', it was using my
homedir to create the .razor directory.
Yep.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:19:38AM +0100, Michael Grant wrote:
Funny, I too just got this same error and yes, I did a razor-agent
-create and -register.
[88199] warn: reporter: razor2 report failed: No such file or
directory report requires authentication at
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your RDNS is
really correct.
to integrate the
functionality into some script.
-
--
http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/ Jean-Marc Liotier
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Anyone-using-URIDNSBL-for-weeding-out-referrer-spam---tf4855342.html#a13893856
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive
://surblhost.sourceforge.net/
Now I'll adapt an existing script or adapt one to do the actual weeding
out...
-
--
http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/ Jean-Marc Liotier
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Anyone-using-URIDNSBL-for-weeding-out-referrer-spam---tf4855342.html#a13898907
Sent from
Yeah - 127.0.0.1 means white listed. :)
Rick Cooper wrote:
My bad, I had 127.0.0.1 in the blacklist on that host instead of 127.0.0.2
Per Jessen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
If you're keen to share your development, why don't you explain to us
how it works?
/Per Jessen, Zürich
The details are a little to complex for this forum but the new trick
is mostly based on the fact that spam bots general don't issue
Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
That's as much detail as I'm going to go into here. But the result is
that I have 720,000 IP addresses of virus infected computers and I'm
fiultering about 1600 domains and I'm not getting any more than the
normal few false positive complaints. And those are due to
OK - Think about it people. People here are saying that spam fighting
techniques are NOT WELCOME in the Spam Assassin list. Don't you people
realize how absolutely stupid that sounds? I am sitting here with my
mouth open in disbelief that anyone even suggest such a thing.
So the observation
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
That's as much detail as I'm going to go into here. But the result is
that I have 720,000 IP addresses of virus infected computers and I'm
fiultering about 1600 domains and I'm not getting any more than
Per Jessen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I've developed an extremely accurate of detecting virus infected spam
zombies. I think it's 100% accurate can catches them on the first try.
Here is 600,000 IP addresses I've detected in the last 3 days.
If you're keen to share your development
Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:30 PM -0700 Marc Perkel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The details are a little to complex for this forum but the new trick is
mostly based on the fact that spam bots general don't issue the QUIT
command and when combined with other factors
Screw you.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc, I'm getting tired of this. If you want to distribute blacklist data,
please set up RBL and rsync and stop spamming here.
Kai
I've developed an extremely accurate of detecting virus infected spam zombies.
I think it's 100% accurate can catches them on the first try. Here is 600,000
IP addresses I've detected in the last 3 days.
Enjoy
http://iplist.junkemailfilter.com/virus.txt
Duane Hill wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 at 10:26 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
I've developed an extremely accurate of detecting virus infected spam
zombies. I think it's 100% accurate can catches them on the first
try. Here
You think it's 100% accurate? What about the systems that
with it
yourself and you just want the spam to go away.
So - who wants in on this? Contact me privately if interested.
Marc Perkel
Junk Email Filter dot com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
mouss wrote:
ram wrote:
I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not yet
listed in uribls
I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atleast some
spammer domains have the same NS records.
Now in my spamassassin
John Rudd wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
the last byte of the return is a number from 1-255. This is the hosts
1 means not only have we never seen ham come from this host, it has
all kinds of danger signals that indicate you shouldn't ever trust
them to do anything useful.
You probably
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Hello everybody!
I'm going to propose you another great idea which will probably radically
change the spam-detection technics.
No, come one: I'm just kitting. :) I think this idea could eventually help
in better detecting the kind of spam in which some
Bret Miller wrote:
*From:* Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bret Miller wrote:
Bret Miller wrote:
* 127.0.0.1 - whilelist - trusted nonspam
* 127.0.0.2 - blacklist - block spam
* 127.0.0.3 - yellowlist - mix of spam
and nonspam
I'm doing some interesting experimenting and discovered and interesting
way to detect spam bots. It appears that spam bots cache DNS far longer
than ordinary. And that is detectable.
As you know I use several fake high numbered MX records to fool spam
bots into hitting the back door and going
continued
It appears that spam bots do their own DNS caching. That reduces DNS
calls and lets them send more spam over the same low bandwidth
connection. You might have noticed that if you change the MX record for
domain that the old IP is still hit with spam sometimes weeks later. I
David B Funk wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
If you have one MX and you create a fake low MX and a fake high MX (or
many fake high MX) about 75% to 95% of your spam goes away. It's that
simple.
How do you deal with the false-positives, legit servers that are blocked
Jason Bertoch wrote:
I think it's safe to say I'm not in the minority when I receive SPF-Compliant
spam. I'm looking for opinions on what we can honestly derive from such
messages regarding the sending server's IP and the sending address' domain name.
Is it wise to blacklist both, or is this
Justin Mason wrote:
Marc Perkel writes:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
I think it's safe to say I'm not in the minority when I receive
SPF-Compliant spam. I'm looking for opinions on what we can honestly
derive from such messages regarding the sending server's IP and the
sending address
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Justin Mason wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:35:39 +0100:
On the contrary, we in SpamAssassin find it useful.
I have to agree with Marc in this special case. It's not very useful. The
reason I think this is that the amount of domains that use SPF is scarce
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
SPF breaks email forwarding.
SPF breaks mail forwarding services that are unwilling to expend a
little effort to modify their MAIL FROM handling. There's documented
ways to do this, you're just unwilling, and instead you'll continue to
repeat
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2007 15:26, Marc Perkel wrote:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
I think it's safe to say I'm not in the minority when I receive
SPF-Compliant spam. I'm looking for opinions on what we can honestly
derive from such messages regarding the sending
David B Funk wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
David B Funk wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
If you have one MX and you create a fake low MX and a fake high MX (or
many fake high MX) about 75% to 95% of your spam goes away. It's that
simple
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 12:50 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
[...]
I don't support from mangling and I'm talking about email forwarded to
us from other servers who also don't do from mangling.
So not from-mangled forwarded email cannot be (technically and quite
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Kelson wrote:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
Is it wise to blacklist both, or is this yet another case where SPF
has failed
to meet projections?
It's a case where the spammer has just handed you useful information:
You know for sure that the
Bret Miller wrote:
Before you look at this as just another blacklist - the real
power is in the white and yellow lists. First - an overview.
My list returns these codes:
* 127.0.0.1 - whilelist - trusted nonspam
* 127.0.0.2 - blacklist - block spam
* 127.0.0.3 - yellowlist - mix of spam
Bill Landry wrote:
j o a r wrote:
On 27 aug 2007, at 21.20, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
That's wrong. Even if all servers in the world would check SPF you would
achieve *nothing* as the big majority of mail doesn't have anything to
check.
Why would I, as a SPF publishing domain
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 points to an IP on the same server as the working MX
then you can
Bret Miller wrote:
* 127.0.0.1 - whilelist - trusted nonspam
* 127.0.0.2 - blacklist - block spam
* 127.0.0.3 - yellowlist - mix of spam
and nonspam
* 127.0.0.4 - brownlist - all spam - but
not yet enough
to blacklist
And hotmail.com warrants being
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
2007/8/27, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Kelson wrote:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
Is it wise to blacklist both, or is this yet another case where SPF
has failed
to meet projections
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/smtp-spf-is-harmful.html
SPF is harmful. Adopt it.
You've come to this page because you've said something similar to the
following:
SPF (sender permitted from a.k.a. sender policy framework) is a
scheme designed to prevent forgery of
Bret Miller wrote:
Bret Miller wrote:
* 127.0.0.1 - whilelist - trusted nonspam
* 127.0.0.2 - blacklist - block spam
* 127.0.0.3 - yellowlist - mix of spam
and nonspam
* 127.0.0.4 - brownlist - all spam - but
not yet enough
to blacklist
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
SPF breaks email forwarding.
SPF breaks mail forwarding services that are unwilling to expend a
little effort to modify their MAIL FROM handling. There's documented
ways to do
801 - 900 of 1295 matches
Mail list logo
