to not send them queries.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
calculate what it would cost.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 8/11/2011 7:44 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:46:57 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kind of getting tired of spamhaus hitting me up for money and trying
to find all the places where I need to change to get rid of spamhaus
queries. What do I need to do to get rid of spamhaus
Kind of getting tired of spamhaus hitting me up for money and trying to
find all the places where I need to change to get rid of spamhaus
queries. What do I need to do to get rid of spamhaus?
Thanks in advance.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http
On 8/11/2011 11:28 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 08/11, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kind of getting tired of spamhaus hitting me up for money and trying
to find all the places where I need to change to get rid of spamhaus
queries. What do I need to do to get rid of spamhaus?
I expect more from
On 8/6/2011 8:41 PM, Jared Hall wrote:
mimeheaderFOREIGN_ATTACH1 Content-Disposition:raw =~
/filename\=\\=\?(GB|gb)2312\?/
Thanks - I'm going to give this a try.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot
Been getting a LOT of Chinese language spam lately with Chinese named
attached spreadsheets or .doc files.
Anyone else seeing this?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
I'm wondering if bayes is slow and causing SA to time out and not run
other tests? Or does bayes run in parallel? I'm beginning to wonder if
bayes is killing other tests allowing more spam to get through?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:54 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm wondering if bayes is slow and causing SA to time out and not run
other tests? Or does bayes run in parallel? I'm beginning to wonder if
bayes is killing other tests allowing more spam
Hi everyone,
Now I'm seeing these error messages in the logs:
Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY without explicit disconnect() of
DBD::mysql::db handle
I'm beginning to wonder if MySQL bays actually works. I'm just geeing
too many strange errors.
Thanks in advance for any help.
--
Marc
in advance.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
real time updating and it's spread across
multiple servers. So need PostgreSQL or MySQL.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Weird error. Interesting part is that BAYES_00 seems to work. What's
going on?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Started getting these:
Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY without explicit disconnect() of
DBD::mysql::db
Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Thanks in advance.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
I must be blind but I can seem to find the files or instructions for
creating the mysql databases to set up bayes.
Thanks in advance
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 6/14/2011 10:19 AM, Morgan Bishop wrote:
On 6/14/2011 1:03 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I must be blind but I can seem to find the files or instructions for
creating the mysql databases to set up bayes.
Thanks in advance
I'm not sure, but I believe you are looking for bayes_mysql.sql
On 6/14/2011 10:40 AM, Morgan Bishop wrote:
On 6/14/2011 1:23 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:19 AM, Morgan Bishop wrote:
On 6/14/2011 1:03 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I must be blind but I can seem to find the files or instructions
for creating the mysql databases to set up bayes
- that's what I was looking for.
You might also find this helpful:
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/debian-spamassassin-sql.html
Regards,
Dave
Thanks Dave, that was useful.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415
+ __BANK_PHISH_31 + __BANK_PHISH_32 + __BANK_PHISH_33 4)
describe CT_BANK_PHISH Wants your account information
score CT_BANK_PHISH 8
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 3/20/2011 9:57 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 20/03/11 16:29, Marc Perkel wrote:
Just throwing this out there to see if people like this rule and if you
would like to improve it. Bank phishing usually involves a lot of
phrases to get you to give up your information. This rule looks for 5
matches
On 3/18/2011 11:19 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 22:52 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Just upgrading from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 and when I run Spamassassin
(spamd) I get this:
spamd: accept failed: Transport endpoint is not connected at
/usr/bin/spamd line 1212
$ grep -rl
Upgraded from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 and getting this error message:
/usr/bin/perl: symbol lookup error:
/usr/local/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/Term/ReadKey/ReadKey.so:
undefined symbol: Perl_pad_sv
when running sa-compile or spamassassin
--
Marc Perkel
drives it is worth and saved me many headaches...
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Thanks - I figured it out. I'm not sure what but there was some perl
libs under /usr/local and I deleted those and the problem went away.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp
Just upgrading from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 and when I run Spamassassin
(spamd) I get this:
spamd: accept failed: Transport endpoint is not connected at
/usr/bin/spamd line 1212
What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
-20100109.html
Are we winning?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
and
useful results. Then do 3 rule combos.
I'm betting that new useful rule combos will be discovered
Someone could write a perl script hat would generate the rules.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992
to process thousands of
domains for tens of thousands of email accounts.
My 2 cents ...
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
. The IP
tells you nothing. That's why I suggest the yellow listing.
I would skip test if they have SPF because spammers often set their SPF
correctly.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
yahoo server is listed it's a waste of resources. If it's
a yahoo server of any flavore why look it up on the blacklists?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Are there any DNSBLs out there based on email addresses? Since you can't
use an @ in a DNS lookup - how would you do DNSBL on email addresses? Is
there a standard?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 12/14/2010 2:38 PM, Big Wave Dave wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Marc Perkel
supp...@junkemailfilter.com wrote:
Are there any DNSBLs out there based on email addresses? Since you can't use
an @ in a DNS lookup - how would you do DNSBL on email addresses? Is there a
standard
, and is fully automated (no user
submissions). I'd hazard that a starting score of 2.0 might be appropriate.
Very good. I just set it up and it seems to be doing well for me so far.
Thanks for the tip.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
On 12/8/2010 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have
ways of detecting spambots only.
tarbaby has a very different connotation: that it is a TCP or SMTP
tarpit. This will make people nervous
, perhaps randomly. I get millions
of hits every day on the highest numbered MX when there are at least 2
and sometimes as many as 7 lower numbered MX records.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 12/8/2010 12:34 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Virus bots tend to hit all MX records, perhaps randomly. I get millions of hits
every day on the highest numbered MX when there are at least 2 and sometimes as
many as 7 lower numbered MX records.
We
Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have ways
of detecting spambots only.
On 12/8/2010 4:02 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 12/8/10 6:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
punish the spammers.
and, punish any senders who follow the RFC's.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
servers talk to each other using the same protocol as users use to talk
to servers.
On 11/18/2010 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100
Benny Pedersenm...@junc.org wrote:
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
If SPF is correct
also allows me to detect
what servers are forwarding email to me.
Other than that - it just plain doesn't work.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
domain. If you have a finite
number of working addresses then they are less likely to use your domain.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
that are sources of
forwarded email.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
and there doesn't seem to be a removal tool. Anyone
else having this problem or can give me some insight as to what is going
on?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 10/7/2010 6:42 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBLhttp://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
host 106.42.49.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net
been removed from DUHL years ago got there again.
Probably old records re-appeared because of something...
Sure is screwing me up. Got several customers whose email is bouncing
when we are forward it as good. I'm disabling all sorbs tests on my end
to prevent false positives.
--
Marc Perkel
Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
are up they have a lot of people blacklists that shouldn't be. I noticed
that this list uses sorbs and the admins might want to disable it.
I don't know what's happening but I wish them the best.
On 10/3/2010 8:10 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
As I said in my original message. The rule itself would have no
points. It would be combined with other rules like large sums of
money and transfer and I'm someone you don't know.
You mean, like
, and how to
mitigate false positives?
Naïve Bayes deals with words independently. If we want to link between words, I
think we are into Natural Language Processing (NLP).
If you have any good thoughts please share.
---
Mahmoud Khonji
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Many times rules that don't score high, when combined, are often
nearly 100% accurate. Here's an example.
I am surname
Christian
Large sum of money
And you could throw in private email as an enhancement.
SA could catch a lot more spam with more combined rules.
Spam is a business model. The
To trigger on text like this:
1.YOUR FULL NAME,
2.YOUR HOME ADDRESS__,
3.YOUR PHONE AND CELL NUMBER__,
4.A COPY OF YOUR PICTURE___,
5.YOUR COUNTRY___,
AGE,
Anyone else seeing an increase in .info spam?
On 8/23/2010 2:31 AM, Raul Dias wrote:
On 08/18/2010 10:14 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
[...] They were discussing ways to reduce spam and I mentioned it. [...]
I believe, that 95% of the discussion in this list is about reducing
spam in a way or another.
-rsd
Agreed. Seems to me that any
and white lists and it seems to work
fine for me. Putting the issue of political correctness aside.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
also scan IPs in received headers. I don't reject on that by itself
but it is a factor when combined with other conditions.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
free too.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
On 8/18/2010 4:46 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 12:38 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Registering with a white list doesn't reduce spam. It reduces false
positives when you send email.
If you want to reduce spam however you could add this MX record as your
highest numbered
On 8/18/2010 9:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 8/18/2010 6:14 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 8/18/2010 4:46 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 12:38 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Registering with a white list doesn't reduce spam. It reduces false
positives when you send email
, please notify us immediately by return e-mail to the sender
and delete from your computer. Although we attempt to sweep e-mail
attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that either are
virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a
result of viruses.
--
Marc Perkel
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Marc Perkel
supp...@junkemailfilter.com mailto:supp...@junkemailfilter.com wrote:
I don't know if uou have looked at Exim but it interfaces with
SpamAssassin and it talks to MySql. Write something as versitile
as Exim and I'm interested. Have you
The have my IP space blacklisted on my main server cluster. I never
heard of them before.
On 7/23/2010 3:45 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 23-Jul-2010, at 16:06, Marc Perkel wrote:
The have my IP space blacklisted on my main server cluster. I never heard of
them before.
They appear to be a scum sucking maggots, but that is just my impression based
on the fact that they hide
Still trying to build my black list (hostkarma) and looking for more
spam. The way it works is that any of you can add this as your highest
numbered MX record.
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Project_tarbaby
It returns a 421 error after the DATA command. Anything that comes to us
on the Internet
that isn't even us, cuts us off for 10 minutes and 500 pieces of
legitimate mail end up going to your server?
Domains these days are really, really cheap. Just setup some
honeypots, man.
Ted
On 7/19/2010 12:48 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Still trying to build my black list (hostkarma
that if they don't
tell you?
I suppose they are being realistic about spf - that it's only really
useful for whitelisting purposes.
It's not even useful for white listing as spammers can set up SPF too.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http
On 7/5/2010 1:10 AM, Kelson Vibber wrote:
On Jul 4, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
It's not even useful for white listing as spammers can set up SPF too.
That's not how whitelisting on SPF works.
You don't whitelist *solely* on the presence of SPF.
You whitelist
Just wondering about what people are using to detect if email is coming
from a mail list discussion server like yahoo or google groups. Does
anyone have good discussion list detection rules?
Also - I'd like to make a list of host names where email from celll
phones comes from. Does anyone have a list of domain name or host names
where cell phone email is sent from?
domain. If they send as
gmail.com or yahoo.com they are blocked.
I'm definitely looking for other technologies to accurately filter
outgoing spam. It's clearly a whole different problem than incomming spam.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http
' ..
Amen on the UCEPROTECT. What a bizarre company.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
of comparisons out there so this gives me some clue. But it doesn'y say
anything about the quality of the lists as it has apews listed highly.
If I created a list that blacklisted everything I would be first.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
leading, but is that also everyone's
experience? Can anyone provide details on how Jeff computed this
information and is it as cut-and-dried as this makes it seem? IOW,
barracuda, the free service, is better than all the rest...
Thanks,
Alex
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp
Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth - if any of you have domains you don't use you can
point them to my virus harvesting server for spam harvesting.
Hmm ... how dead is dead ? :-)
We had for some time three domains (our institute was moved
For what it's worth - if any of you have domains you don't use you can
point them to my virus harvesting server for spam harvesting. That gets
rid of the spam coming to you and it helps block spam for everyone using
my blacklist. Set the MX to a single entry:
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com
Good
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.02.10 15:22, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to find a way to get people to get their FCrDNS correct. The
way I see it if they can't get RDNS correct they aren't going to get
SPF correct. Unfortunately I get a lot of ham from IPs with no RDNS
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:15:58 PM CET, Marc Perkel wrote
but you constantly refuse to use SPF the same way...
Yep - fcrdns doesn't break email forwarding.
spf works as designed, but it does not help domain owners to make the
right spf record on dns to support forwarding
Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2/25/2010 8:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
The forward issue is definitely an annoyance. But SPF has a problem
in that as the supporters admit, it doesn't block spam, and it can't
be used as a white rule because spammers often use SPF correctly. I'm
not sure what you
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.02.10 15:22, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to find a way to get people to get their FCrDNS correct. The
way I see it if they can't get RDNS correct they aren't going to get SPF
correct. Unfortunately I get a lot of ham from IPs with no RDNS
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
Here's where spf is useful.
On 25.02.10 15:31, Marc Perkel wrote:
Except that it breaks forwarded email.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have never seen any occurence of SPF breaking forwarding
Jason Bertoch wrote:
SPF wasn't meant to block spam, please stop asserting that.
http://old.openspf.org/howworks.html
Quoting the page:
And as a user, SPF can help you sort the good from the bad. Reject mail
that fails an SPF check.
Rick Cooper wrote:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it
is also not a white listing solution because as many people have said
here - spammers are the ones who are using SPF correctly.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because as many people have said here
Jeff Koch wrote:
At 02:31 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because
LuKreme wrote:
On 25-Feb-2010, at 10:29, Marc Perkel wrote:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you for
admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is also not a
white listing solution because as many people have said here - spammers
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:08:46 -0500:
I disagree.
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam tool. Full
stop.
Kai
You say that here but in your last message you said:
If SPF was adapted 99% (and always strict with no
Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2/25/2010 6:37 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
A lot of posts with useless rants on a personal grievance against SPF
Marc,
I suspect you're not seeing a bunch of supporters of SPF post on this
thread because most find it tiresome, bothersome, pointless, or all
Jeff Koch wrote:
In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
enforcement. Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
- domain owners are allowing SPF records to be added to their zone
files without understanding the implications or that are just not
I got a request to remove cmpgnr.com for my black list. Are these people
legit?
I'm looking over your MTX site and like SPF I don't understand how it
stops spam. Thanks for at least addressing in part the email forwarding
issue.
In order to be a white list you have to do something spammers can't do.
I don't see what prevents spammers from creating good MTX records like
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
In my initial posts I did focus too much on my hope that MTX will
eventually be sufficiently widely adopted that such mail *can* safely be
penalized. I also apologized for that communication failure on my part.
I'm still waiting for RDNS to be widely
jdow wrote:
From: Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, 2010/February/01 11:24
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
system that sends regular email is in any way connected to the
internal patient system.
Not knowing what their system is I have to make
Kārlis Repsons wrote:
Hi,
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid of
spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to miss some
mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that long list in [1], but that
doesn't say much of what should be
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5
This is
Mark Martinec wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:53:35 Marc Perkel wrote:
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0.1') describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Ideally everyone would pass these.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains that have no SPF record.
I tested only the most
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
I'm looking at the page and did a search and the word spam is not
there. :)
That's the outgoing email gateway for a hospital. It stays whitelisted.
Bowie Bailey wrote:
This was listed in the Hostkarma whitelist:
[198.217.64.52 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
Can we get this IP removed?
(I was going to report this directly, but I lost the email address and
Yep - sutterhealth.org is a hospital. Making sure good email gets
through is more important than a little bit of occasional spam.
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Even if they are emailing me regarding the amazingly large sum of money
some unknown person apparently left me in his will? :)
Marc Perkel
Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 01/02/2010 17:31, Marc Perkel wrote:
Yep - sutterhealth.org is a hospital. Making sure good email gets
through is more important than a little bit of occasional spam.
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists
And if you never send spam we
Alex wrote:
Hi,
They are the kind of people I email about these problems because it could
signal they've been hacked. And that's a bad thing for hospitals. The
sooner they know the sooner they can clean house.
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
Alex wrote:
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
system that sends regular email is in any way connected to the
internal patient system.
Not knowing what their system is I have to make sure that email sent from
hospitals gets delivered. Passing ham
201 - 300 of 1043 matches
Mail list logo
