Mike Cardwell wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy
of the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably good to me.
I
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 06:30 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
the list
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Chris Owenow...@hubris.net 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
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 06.08.09 15:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
This might be an advanced concept for you but what I meant was -
deliberately send spam. Everyone doing sender verification is someone
who is trying to BLOCK spam, and therefore are the good guys. I also
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Backscatter.org is the worst RBL on the planet. If you use it you
will get a lot of false positives.
Lets compare backscatterer's recommended usage of their list in your
favourite MTA against your own recommendation for usage of your
hostkarma RBL
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Backscatter.org is the worst RBL on the planet. If you use it you
will get a lot of false positives.
Lets compare backscatterer's recommended usage of their list in your
favourite MTA against your own recommendation for usage of your
hostkarma RBL
d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:35, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 3-Aug-2009, at 18:36, Dennis G German wrote:
Is Backscatter.org http://www.backscatterer.org/index.php used
by any
rules?
For what it's worth I'm now ahead of Barracuda on Jeff Makey's blacklist
comparison chart. Not a scientific comparison but it's about all there
is to compare blacklists. Now only abuseat.org and spamhaus have me
beat. (apews doesn't count because they blacklist everything)
Thanks for the lists. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it but I'm
going to see if I can find a way to use it.
Does anyone have a list of all domains that provide short url redirection?
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
I couldn't find any place on junkmailfilter website to report this, so
I'll put it here.
I received a 419 scam email with this whitelist hit:
* -3.0 RCVD_IN_JMF_W RBL: Sender listed in JMF-WHITE
* [213.4.129.18 listed in
No list is perfect. Thanks for reporting it. Although I try to get
everything right there will always be mistakes. Sometimes I do get to
leaning white because false positives are 100 times worse than a few
spams getting through. Probably what happened with that is that the
sender does a pretty
so we
don't have to send these to the list.
Bowie
Marc Perkel wrote:
No list is perfect. Thanks for reporting it. Although I try to get
everything right there will always be mistakes. Sometimes I do get to
leaning white because false positives are 100 times worse than a few
spams getting
mouss wrote:
Bowie Bailey a écrit :
I couldn't find any place on junkmailfilter website to report this, so
I'll put it here.
I received a 419 scam email with this whitelist hit:
so what? I keep getting 419 from google, yahoo, ... but they are still
whitelisted.
Actually
What do you need to make it survive? It works great for me.
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
As you all know, on July 1st the emailbl.me test zone will go dark.
I helped Henrik test the plugin and find mirrors for the data which
was being fed by feeds dedicated to this test only.
Would be nice to
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 5/28/2009 6:27 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
What do you need to make it survive? It works great for me.
I won't be involved at all.
It needs data, mirrors, zone, all what a RBL needs.
I'll do the mirrors - provide server - I have data - I don't have what
you
I'm looking for domains to whitelist that meet this criteria:
All email from the domain is 100% good
The FcRDNS matches the domain name
Example: *.wellsfargo.com
Silimarly I'd like domains for my yellow list. Yellow is mixed spam/hame
sources like yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc.
Example:
Thanks for your support everyone. In the last month my blacklist has
doubled in size and trapping a lot more spam bots. But still looking for
more spam so if any of you want to get a little less spam and help me
build my spam bot list then here's the instructions:
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
BTW - for those who are curious, the lists are generated mostly from
Exim rules. Exim has a feature that allows me to track hosts that
don't use QUIT to close a connection. Thus the combination of fake
mx, no quit, No or bad RDNS or dynamic IP
Ned Slider wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
And I do have a goal of !00% accuracy although that is difficult to
attain.
While I guess most blacklist operators do aim at a perfect blacklist,
regardless of specific definitions and whether others agree or not...
That's probably one of the
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:41:12PM +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
I've also just recently enabled these lists in SA so am still in the
very early stages of testing. I initially did get one FP hit against
the whitelist (spam message sent through an
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 11:25, Mike Cardwell wrote:
A cool idea would be an application in a similar vain to p0f, but which
passively detected the SMTP client software, rather than operating
system. It might then be possible to distribute signatures that
identified
option8 wrote:
it is common for one domains to get an order of magnitude more spam
than another that seems just like it. like mark said, it probably
won't stop. low overhead techniques like greylisting or no listing
can reduce the stress on your server quite a bit. configuring your
mta
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've also just recently enabled these lists in SA so am still in
the very early stages of testing. I initially did get one FP hit
against the whitelist (spam message sent through an ISP smtp server
in the whitelist)
On 20.05.09 13:41,
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I just think that a whitelist entry should be an absolute no spam
comes from here unless something goes tits up type entry, and all
hosts on it should be manually checked...
IIUC this is whitelist of type don't blacklist these hosts...
Looking for people with dead domains that still get a lot of spam,
especially spambot spam. I'm trying to get more spambot data for our
hostkarma spam list. If you have such a domain that you aren't using can
you set the MX to tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com. It will help stop
spammers at the
or accepting such a domain.
I hope dead = 'has bounced 550 5.1.1 for at least a year to all
attempts to previously valid addresses', otherwise, for all intents
and purposes, especially this one, I'm not dead yet.
On 19/05/09 8:59 AM, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
Looking for people
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 19/05/09 10:55 AM, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
That's not how I would define dead. Our system can tell the difference between
a good email sent to a dead domain and a spambot. Our definition is any domain
that has not current legitimate email.
Good
Ned Slider wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 19/05/09 10:55 AM, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
That's not how I would define dead. Our system can tell the
difference between a good email sent to a dead domain and a
spambot. Our definition
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
And I do have a goal of !00% accuracy although that is difficult to
attain.
While I guess most blacklist operators do aim at a perfect blacklist,
regardless of specific definitions and whether others agree or not...
That's probably one of the worst shift
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.
however, one domain that i host gets constantly bombarded, and has since i
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com 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
LuKreme wrote:
On 19-May-2009, at 20:34, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Other than that, I recently enabled Hostkarma blacklists here, just to
check. FWIW, it's scoring *really* good for me. So good, I seriously
toned it down. I want to evaluate it first. For that, I need something
even close to
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
So - I want to be #1. I want more spam. And you can lost some of your
spam at the same time. All you have to do to help out is add a
Chris Owen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 18, 2009, at 10:36 AM, DAve wrote:
Those results differ wildly with my stats over the past year.
Barracuda throws far too many FP for me to use on the MTA, I have to
use it in SA and let the better tests pull the score
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
+1 for the invaluement lists. they are excellent, sad that they
aren't listed in that comparison. we seem to get better results with
barracuda than you've seen, many of our clients choose to use the
barracuda list to block. we offer the hostkarma lists as well but
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
hi -- this stuff is generally recorded in the Received header, and SA
will act on it if it's there. that's the place to do it...
The STARTTLS example is recorded in the received headers, yes. None
of the other 3 examples are
I would like to offer my help for your project. So far it's working
well. I can offer you any of the following:
Data - I have tons of spam if you need to harvest data.
Computers - I have a lot of processing power if you need a VPS.
Bandwidth - I have some bandwidth to spare
rbldnsd servers - I
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 5/12/2009 4:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm not using your plugin yet but using it from Exim instead and it's
working well. Lots of hist. I suppose we'll find out if there's any
false positives.
Here's how you do it in Exim
set acl_c_from_address = ${lc:${address
I'm not using your plugin yet but using it from Exim instead and it's
working well. Lots of hist. I suppose we'll find out if there's any
false positives.
Here's how you do it in Exim
set acl_c_from_address = ${lc:${address:$h_From:}}
set acl_c_from_address_hash = ${md5:$acl_c_from_address}
Do you need more mirrors? I can offer you 4 additional servers.
Henrik K wrote:
Hi,
EmailBL plugin is now available for testing. Small test zone has been
running for a while, it contains trapped addresses from some of the most
popular freemail domains.
http://sa.hege.li/EmailBL.pm (see
mouss wrote:
Is phishing really a problem for banks? I don't think so.
You're kidding right?
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 13:15, Ned Slider wrote:
Or maybe I'm trying to reinvent a wheel someone already has up and
running :-)
a bank without SPF or DKIM signing is NOT worth using
Yes - but I think what he's saying is that you have to start with a list
of
Just curious - how did you build that list?
Henrik K wrote:
Hello,
I've revamped fully the old code. Works still the same, but has some new
functions. It's also a bit more careful when parsing body (new parser,
emails inside are ignored, as well ones inside urls etc), so it might
even reduce
Maybe it's an old story. I saw a drop last fall but it's come back since
then.
Jason Staudenmayer wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:57 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users List
Subject: mcafee sees drop in spam?
Has anyone else noticed an increase in bot spam? My black list has grown
by about 1/3 in the last month.
What source file is the registry barrier code in?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks - that was what I was looking for.
Mark Martinec wrote:
Marc,
What source file is the registry barrier code in?
Mail/SpamAssassin/Util/RegistrarBoundaries.pm
but is slightly out of date, for example it does
not include registered IDN tld names:
XN--0ZWM56D
XN--11B5BS3A9AJ6G
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 04/04/09 11:31 AM, RobertH robe...@abbacomm.net wrote:
greetings...
i am working at re-learning and applying SA fine tuning.
in doing so, i have some across some real life SA scoring anomalies.
it is interesting because one public reputaion service rule
RobertH wrote:
0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from
dynamic IP
address
[209.92.22.130 listed in
dnsbl.sorbs.net]
That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
whois://209.92.22@whois.arin.net
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
as i noted in the last post, it was about the difference between
JMF_Whitelist and RCVD in Barracuda
barracusa says spam, jmf whitelist is obvious.
I agree. In fact I removed that host from my white list. I am very
interested
I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
up an rbldns list of banks if this works out.
2checkout.com
2co.com
abbey.com
Matt Garretson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to get a more complete list of banks or bank like institutions
and sites where hackers are trying to steal passwords to log into
people's accounts. Here's my small list. Like to get more. I might set
What about webmail sites
decoder wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
This is an excellent idea, but it also needs rule hits on ham, right?
You're right if you're saying that the method would work better if
there were more ham rules. From what I have seen in my experiments
however, the results are also very precise with the
I'm going to bet that there will be static meta rules that will be
discovered that can be just added to spamassassin. I'm interested in how
this plays out. I'm very optimistic.
So - making any progress? :)
decoder wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Good work so far but sounds like you need to throw more data at it.
Also even though you indicate over 99% accuracy can you break that
down better? 99.9% is 10 times as accurate as 99%.
What do you mean by more data? Of course, some additional data might
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I should note that some policy rules and rules with manually updated scores
(SPF_PASS, BAYES_*) may need to be exempted from this.
We don't want SPF_PASS to generate high positive score, do we?
The idea of all this is that we might discover things like
Justin Mason wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 00:43, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:06, John Wilcock j...@tradoc.fr wrote:
Le 03/03/2009 17:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
I have been already thinking about possibility
decoder wrote:
decoder wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
So you're volunteering to code it up, then? ;)
I was planning to do at least some brainstorming+experiements as to
what learning methods would seem suitable and how well the method
performs, whenever I have time again. Unless someone
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 3/3/2009 5:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
The important point here is that SA needs to evolve beyond the concept
of using addition to compute scores. Ideally there should be more
hard coded rule combinations or using baysian statistics to find how
rule combinations
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I guess one would need a new plugin for the above yellow RBLs, due to
the problem of limiting all hits per URI / IP as mentioned above. Also,
of course, one first needs a reliably and publicly available
do-not-blacklist RBL.
I have such an RBL.
John Wilcock wrote:
I wonder about the feasibility of a second Bayesian database, using
the same learning mechanism as the current system, but keeping track
of rule combinations instead of keywords.
YES! That is something I think is worth trying.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 17:40, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
John Wilcock wrote:
I wonder about the feasibility of a second Bayesian database, using the
same learning mechanism as the current system, but keeping track of rule
combinations instead of keywords
LuKreme wrote:
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:06, John Wilcock j...@tradoc.fr wrote:
Le 03/03/2009 17:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
I have been already thinking about possibility to combine every two
rules
and do a masscheck over them. Then, optionally repeating that again,
skipping
Per Jessen wrote:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Per Jessen [mailto:p...@computer.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:15 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Googlegroups related spam
here's a couple of examples that made it through my filter:
Dave Funk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Dave Funk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Hi,
I have a quick bind question. I want to set the MX records on a
domain to something normal but I want to set the MX for all
subdomains
Dave Funk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 22:06 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Dave Funk wrote:
Yes, it -is- that simple. ;)
Not recommended for normal use but if you understand the risks involved,
it does work that way
Hi,
I have a quick bind question. I want to set the MX records on a domain
to something normal but I want to set the MX for all subdomains to
something else.
example.com mail.example.com
xxx.example.com blackhole.example.com
Thanks in advance
Marc Perkel wrote:
Hi,
I have a quick bind question. I want to set the MX records on a domain
to something normal but I want to set the MX for all subdomains to
something else.
example.com mail.example.com
xxx.example.com blackhole.example.com
Thanks in advance
I should be more
Dave Funk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Hi,
I have a quick bind question. I want to set the MX records on a
domain to something normal but I want to set the MX for all
subdomains to something else.
example.com mail.example.com
xxx.example.com
Dave Funk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Hi,
I have a quick bind question. I want to set the MX records on a
domain to something normal but I want to set the MX for all
subdomains to something else.
example.com mail.example.com
xxx.example.com
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 22:06 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Dave Funk wrote:
Yes, it -is- that simple. ;)
Not recommended for normal use but if you understand the risks involved,
it does work that way.
Thanks Dave, but I already tried that and it didn't
I'm experimenting with ips.backscatterer.org and it seems to only hit on
good email.
Also - it might be more useful if it returned different codes based on
the kind of backscatter detected.
mouss wrote:
Marc Perkel a écrit :
I'm experimenting with ips.backscatterer.org and it seems to only hit on
good email.
it lists hosts that sent backscatter, be these legitimate hosts or
not. but beware, it also lists hosts that do address verification
callout probes.
I'm
Ham is often easier to detect than spam and in order to reduce false
positives I'm trying to increase my whitelist data of host names that
never send spam. This is based on Forward Confirmed rDNS which can't be
faked. I have a public white list of these host name available as follows:
Does the spamassassin infrastructure support RBL lookups based on
forward confirmed RDNS? For example. I have a white lists based on good
host names. What would a rule look like that looks up these host names
from my DNS list?
domain.com.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com = 127.0.0.1
Andre wrote:
Hi,
we run Exim (4.69) with mail scanned at smtp time via acl. We put an
external spamd server to work (works fine).
Now we want to extend that setup by permitting another mail server (Exim,
same setup) to connect to the spamd server. However, that transport has to
happen over
I would be willing to maintain an RBL type list of freemail domains if
this would be useful. I could set up a VPS for the front end and provide
several servers and lots of bandwidth for a backend.
Steve Freegard wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm doing an experimental free MX backup service and wondering if it
will get exploited. I'm wondering if I'm overlooking anything obvious?
Here's the info on it:
http://www.free-mx-backup.com
The idea is that it detects if we are the secondary
RobertH wrote:
I'm doing an experimental free MX backup service and
wondering if it will get exploited. I'm wondering if I'm
overlooking anything obvious?
Here's the info on it:
http://www.free-mx-backup.com
The idea is that it detects if we are the secondary and not
the primary MX
I'm doing an experimental free MX backup service and wondering if it
will get exploited. I'm wondering if I'm overlooking anything obvious?
Here's the info on it:
http://www.free-mx-backup.com
The idea is that it detects if we are the secondary and not the primary
MX and will store and
Filter on upper case GOD BLESS.
Igor Chudov wrote:
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/spam006.txt
Not sure what will follow, maybe asking $250 processing fee or
something. Obviously I am not in the mood to write to this guy.
Looking few a few domains to test and automated MX backup service with
some spam filtering. What you do is this. Add these two MX records as
your two highest MX records.
mail.example.com 10
mxbackup1.junkemailfilter.com 20
mxbackup2.junkemailfilter.com 30
And in theory it will just work. If
Just a thought on blacklists. Has anyone tried mining the IP data from
HTTP servers that use modsecurity? I'm wondering if the same computers
that are spamming blogs are also spamming with email? Would this be a
new way to catch spammers?
My fault - never mind. I was doing something wrong.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 21:23 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm trying to get collaborate.com off of the URIBL list and I've
submitted it for removal several times and nothing happens.
Log in to your URIBL
I'm trying to get collaborate.com off of the URIBL list and I've
submitted it for removal several times and nothing happens. Does anyone
know why removal doesn't work?
Thanks in advance
I think I have it all ready to go. Looking for some volunteers to test
my new email backup service. Contact me privately if you're interested.
I'm looking for people with:
1) No greylisting - unless you exempt *.junkemailfilter.com from your
greylisting. If you do that I want at least one
Bill Landry wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:04 AM
it's WORKING
Well,
it hangs my SA 3.2.4 setup on waiting for a reply from ctyme.ixhash.net .
The strange thing
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 because users will see a
significant reduction in spam and might want to
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
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
I'm experimenting with a new list. Been testing it for a couple of
months. Got a radical idea.
The problem with lists like Day Old Bread which lists new domains that
spammers use is that there's a delay between when they are activated and
when they are listed. It's just too hard to get a list
SM wrote:
At 11:51 02-12-2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
Tell me if you think this is a good idea.
Everything that helps to promote your business is a good idea. :-)
Thanks - but there are some other benefits to me. It will help enhance
my black lists which will make them more useful
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 that in up front.
Interesting, how would you do that without dropping email (which is BAD).
Rick
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
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
it's WORKING
Dirk Bonengel wrote:
OK, I found the bug.
I just released a fixed release. Thanks to Lars Uhlmann for finding
the culprit and delivering a fix.
Problem was the regular expression checking the IP returned if it
belongs to the 127.x.x.x range.
Hmm, I had this working
RobertH wrote:
If the recipient is bad then no one would have got the email
anyway. But there wouldn't a a notification to the sender. I
suppose I could make it smarter so that if the message is
blessed in one of my many white lists then I would do a
bounce message, otherwise not.
I noticed this morning that I also had 0 ixhash hits. Is something wrong?
Rose, Bobby wrote:
Has anyone who switched to 1.5 of iXHash received any hits? I haven't seen any
since switching. One thing that I've noticed is if I pass the same message
thru SA using the old iXhash, the hash is
Hi Dirk,
I'm not getting any hits on the new version either.
Dirk Bonengel wrote:
Folks,
as some of you already noticed I f... up the last (1.5) release of the
iXhash plugin.
Plain simple a wrong regular expression practically disables hash #1.
I just uploaded a fixed version to
I noticed the size of my black list dropped by more that 1/3 this last week.
401 - 500 of 1043 matches
Mail list logo
