Re: Dinged for .Date

* Michael Orlitzky: > the result for me at least is that it's less work (i.e. less > expensive) to just block every new gTLD and whitelist the few > legitimate senders brave enough to live there. My guess is that a significant number of mail service administrators use the same approach. I

Re: My apologies

* Grant Taylor via users: > He /is/ blocked from from sending messages to / through the mailing > list. This is also what happened to him on the Postfix mailing list, and rightly so. It has been many years. > Here's the thing. He is sending his reply /around/ the list -- > apparently -- so

Re: bug in 3.4.6

* Bill Cole: > That's a lousy bug report. It's both (1) untrue (or at least grossly > imprecise) and (2) not in Bugzilla. I have added Benny Pedersen to my mail killfile a long, long time ago, and never regretted it. He only pops up when people quote his confused messages, which I wish they

Re: Add header, not beginning with X?

* joea: > Nutshell: I want to add "Reply-to: (some address)" to messages without > same. Assuming you are the message sender, that's a task best left to your MUA. I don't known if GroupWise can do it, though. Beyond that, using Postfix is a better option for adding custom headers than trying to

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* Bill Cole: > Trusting the authenticity of email simply because it comes from a > machine which uses a resolvable HELO in a particular domain is a naive > approach unless you are *AT LEAST* using a DNS resolver that demands > authenticated answers, i.e. requires DNSSEC [...] Agreed, but I'd go

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* Rupert Gallagher: > They will procrastinate until the end of time unless we do something. "We"? You are trying to drag others into your fight against windmills. No thanks. > I tried hard, but they are lazy/ignorant/careless. Blacklisting would > trigger a problem with most of their customers,

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* Rupert Gallagher: > Correction: it is not the mid, it is the helo. /me snorts But of course it is. :-D After I have just read your ramblings in a 2017 mailing list thread [1], in which you made the same nonsense remarks about message IDs, why would I doubt you? [1]

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* RW: > https://readlist.com/lists/incubator.apache.org/spamassassin-users/20/101951.html Oh my, I was not aware of that. Looks like Rupert has nurtured his pet peeve for at least three years. Thats a long time of being stubbornly wrong. -Ralph

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* Rupert Gallagher: > They have explicit consent to send rfc compliant e-mail. "They" are not violating RFC 2822 with their message IDs, as I already explained in message <87eeoqfpel@wedjat.horus-it.com>. > Rfc-clueless.org seems.a good starting point. You are the one who misunderstands

Re: Blacklisting a stubborn sender

* Rupert Gallagher: > Two well known companies in my country persist in making the mistake > of writing their mid with a non-public fqdn, violating the rfc. [...] > been so for the past three years, with me sending detailed, manually > Their answer is that everybody else accepts their invalid

Re: Constructive solution to the blacklist thread

* Thom van der Boon: > I do not like the proposed change, because of greylisting. What is > between a welcomelist and a blocklist? Literally? White spaces. Also, to the imaginary racially offended crew out there: I'll have you know that I will keep ordering black coffee, even in public and in

Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes

* Alex Woick: > The racism behind descriptive things like blacklist and whitelist is > so subtle, so old, so established, nobody realizes they are racist > except the people it is against. There is no globally applicaple notion of racism in these terms, as I explained repeatedly. Some people

Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever

* Charles Sprickman: > Rather than tolerate the tiniest of changes you throw a tantrum. "Tiny changes", as in small stones getting kicked down a slope, causing an avalanche. Attempts to restrict vocabulary should be a very familiar and worrying concept to anyone who read Orwell. Speaking out

Re: Thanks to Guardian Digital & LinuxSecurity for the nice post about SpamAssassin's upcoming change

* Kevin A. McGrail: > We're getting some positive attention from the verbiage change. Pluralis Majestatis, is it? ;-) What you call "the nice post" follows the overall theme of the US cultural imperialism you pushed in this thread. I see no mention in the purely US-centric article that (a)

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Bill Cole: > On 14 Jul 2020, at 16:20, Ralph Seichter wrote: > >> You obviously continue to ignore that white/black mean different >> things across the globe. > > Not at all. This is exactly why their use when not referring to colors > is inaccurate and potentiall

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Kevin A. McGrail: > I would posit that the 1962 date is rooted as much in the US Civil > Rights movement in the 1960's as anything else. Before then white and > black definitely had negative connotations [...] And we're back, once again, to America: The *US* Civil Rights movement (which I

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Kevin A. McGrail: > To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly > archived mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history. "The horror... The horror..." (W. Kurtz) :-) Seriously, what's with the drama? This discussion already has emotions running high. As I

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Eric Broch: > As stated earlier by another very aware poster, this is nothing less > than, "Newspeak." That was actually me, in message <87lfjr78zu@wedjat.horus-it.com>. However, you did not quote the first part of the sentence, which I consider just as important: >> Racists are assholes,

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Eric Broch: > This is not about racism this is about a Marxist (Socialist) > takeover. Huh? Please don't quote me when talking nonsense such as this. It is of course about racism. I just don't consider "improving language" (an ugly euphemism, by the way) a productive way to deal with this

Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

* Kevin A. McGrail: > This is about doing the right thing and getting rid of racially charged > language. I'd appreciate support in this change or at least if you can't > say something nice or helpful, just keep it to yourselves. Is it the official Apache.org position to tell those with

Re: Where is SA getting config info?

* Jerry Malcolm: > Why don't you just consider not "helping" anybody else here. Reindl Harald has been evicted, for good reason, from many mailing lists I subscribe to. I still recommend blocking him locally via killfiles or similar methods. He's not worth paying attention to. -Ralph

Re: Open source

* RW: > You're missing the point. It may surprise you, but there is more than one "point" to having packages, and I can choose to make whatever point I damn well please. :-) -Ralph

Re: Open source (WAS: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain)

* Mike Marynowski: > I was more asking if there is a good reason to build packages intended > for local installation by email server operators and I don't think > there really is. As a maintainer of several Gentoo Linux ebuilds, I agree you should leave packaging to the various Linux

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Mike Marynowski: > Question though - what is your reply-to address set to in the emails > coming from your email-only domain? We very rarely inject Reply-To, because this might interfere with what the original sender intended. -Ralph

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Mike Marynowski: > You know what I mean. That's quite an assumption to make, in a mailing list. ;-) > I could just not publish this and keep it for myself and I'm sure that > would make it more effective long term for me, but I figured I would > contribute it so that others can gain some

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* David Jones: > I would like to see an Open Mail Reputation System setup by a working > group of big companies so it would have some weight behind it. Running a smaller business, I have no interest whatsoever in a "group of big companies" having any say in our mail reputation, as you can surely

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Mike Marynowski: > Everything we test for is easily compromised on its own. That's quite a sweeping statement, and I disagree. IP-based real time blacklists, anyone? Also, "we" is too unspecific. In addition to the stock rules, I happen to maintain a set of custom tests which are neither

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Mike Marynowski: > And the cat and mouse game continues :) It sure does, and that's what sticks in my craw here: For a pro spammer, it is easy to set up websites in an automated fashion. If I was such a naughty person, I'd just add one tiny service that answers "all is well" for every incoming

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Antony Stone: > Each to their own. Of course. Alas, if this gets widely adopted, we'll probably have to set up placeholder websites (as will spammers, I'm sure). -Ralph

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Grant Taylor: > Why would you do it per email? I would think that you would do the > test and cache the results for some amount of time. I would not do it at all, caching or no caching. Personally, I don't see a benefit trying to correlate email with a website, as mentioned before, based on

Re: Spam rule for HTTP/HTTPS request to sender's root domain

* Mike Marynowski: > Of the 100 last legitimate email domains that have sent me mail, 100% > of them have working websites at the root domain. We use some of our domains specifically for email, with no associated website. Besides, I think the overhead to establish a HTTPS connection for every

Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests

* Anne P. Mitchell: > I have found that establishing my expertise and authority up front > tends to ward off lengthy discussions that take up way more mailing > list bandwidth than the signature. I don't want to weigh in on the perceived worth of your signature, but are you aware of the

Re: Scoring Issues

On 27.01.18 16:32, Daniele Duca wrote: > > score SPF_PASS -0.001 > > score SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 > > I know, I meant to write that I score them at 0.001 (no minus sign in > my case) but I'm lazy :) I trust you are aware that you actually penalise senders which pass the SPF check if you use a

Re: Whitelisting DKIM-signed domains

On 08.10.17 11:55, Matthias Leisi wrote: > If the DKIM signature does not validate, the rules do not fire. My bad, I had missed the sentence "Askdns rules awaiting for a tag which never receives its value never result in a DNS query" in

Re: Whitelisting DKIM-signed domains

On 07.10.17 23:41, Matthias Leisi wrote: > More details are here https://www.dnswl.org/?p=311 Since the blog did not explain it, I'm asking here: I have a primary and several secondary domains tied to a DNSWL ID. All of these domains can be used to send emails to public mailing lists. Some

Re: Would anyone be interested in a SA enhancing service?

On 22.09.2017 19:43, John Hardin wrote: > He was only proposing the subject. Essentially it sounds like a > subjectBL service. As you since realised, Marc suggested full emails. Personally, I'd not share even subject lines. I'm trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to glance at

Re: Would anyone be interested in a SA enhancing service?

On 22.09.2017 17:40, Marc Perkel wrote: > If there is interest my initial demo test will be just stuffing the > subject line into a IP/port and returning a number where positive is > spam and negative is ham. This would just be a proof of concept. > > The next level would be sending the message

Re: Increasing spam level for MX backup server?

On 22.09.2017 18:19, Davide Marchi wrote: > Is there any way to tell to reject any mail coming to the MX backup > server, if the primary server is up? Have you not just recently asked this on the Postfix mailing list? Somebody did. It is not a SpamAssassin issue, since SA only gets involved

Re: bb.barracudacentral.org

On 15.09.17 23:50, Chris wrote: > localhost named[1284]: connection refused resolving > '190.129.2.198.bb.barracudacentral.org/A/IN': 64.235.154.72#53 According to http://barracudacentral.org/rbl/how-to-use that should be b.barracudacentral.org, not bb.barracudacentral.org (single 'b'). -Ralph

Re: Ends with string

On 08.09.2017 18:24, Robert Boyl wrote: > Is there a way to create a Spamassassin rule that checks for a certain > URL suffix such as .ru but makes sure it has to be at the end of the > URI? Ends with string. There is (foo$). SpamAssassin uses Perl regular expressions, and you can find many

Re: The real spoofing issue

On 18.10.16 00:52, Ruga wrote: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 The header line From: "John Doe " does not violate the RFC section you linked. It may be unusual, and you are of course free to personally (!) use it as a spam indicator,

Re: The real spoofing issue

On 17.10.16 15:45, RW wrote: > Most of what SpamAssassin targets is RFC compliant. It would be > perfectly legitimate to score bogus addresses in the display name > if it proved useful. With "useful" being open to interpretation. ;-) Some of my customers are willing to accept a much higher

Re: The real spoofing issue

On 17.10.16 02:38, Benny Pedersen wrote: > one could argue if From:Name and From:Addr have differing domains its > forged ? Which RFC defines "From:Name" and "From:Addr" (I don't see the terms in RFC5322), and where does it say that domain names must match if they are present? The header line

Re: How to get spam assassin to detect spoofed mails as SPF is clearly useless

On 15.10.16 21:08, Petr Bena wrote: > if my mail server sign every single e-mail with DKIM, that e-mail should > be signed even if it's redistributed by mailing list daemon or not? Sadly, there are mailing list admins who think it wise to have subject lines or message bodies modified, e.g. by

Re: How to get spam assassin to detect spoofed mails as SPF is clearly useless

On 15.10.16 20:13, Petr Bena wrote: > One of solutions that I proposed is an optional SA plugin that would > treat the email found in "From:" header as envelope sender and check > against that, raising the score or doing something if it failed. A sending mail on behalf of B does not

Re: How to get spam assassin to detect spoofed mails as SPF is clearly useless

On 15.10.16 17:33, Petr Bena wrote: > I started this discussion stating the fact that SPF, DKIM and DMARC > don't prevent people from being able to spoof your email address. These mechanisms are not meant to prevent spoofing (and they can't), just to make it easier to detect spoofing on the

Re: How to get spam assassin to detect spoofed mails as SPF is clearly useless

On 14.10.16 23:24, Petr Bena wrote: > I know that this would break existing standards (which are flawed by > design TBH), but why not at least make this as an optional feature? You said it yourself: because it would break existing standards. That's reason enough not to mess with things. The

Re: sa-update has not updated anything since SpamAssassin was installed several weeks ago (SOLVED)

On 2012-12-20 02:46, Mark Martinec wrote: Net::DNS 0.69 and 0.70 are incompatible with sa-update from SpamAssassin 3.3.2 or earlier. I reverted to Net::DNS 0.68, et voilà, it works. Thanks! -Ralph

sa-update has not updated anything since SpamAssassin was installed several weeks ago

Hi guys, I wonder why sa-update never updates any rules one of my SpamAssassin installations on Gentoo Linux. Running sa-update -D returns these messages: dbg: channel: attempting channel updates.spamassassin.org dbg: channel: update directory

Re: sa-update has not updated anything since SpamAssassin was installed several weeks ago

On 2012-12-19 21:00, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: dig -t txt 2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org ; DiG 9.9.2 -t txt 2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15944 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0,

Re: Consultant

* Jerry Durand: Just had a client demand a big discount on a device he tested for 2 months as a prototype, approved production of, THEN decided he didn't like the function of the lid latch. What a bummer! That's one more example of why it is sometimes easier to be a consultant than a

Re: Consultant

* Henry Weber: We are willing to pay for services as long as there is a good result. Well, it might be true that some Chinese doctors of ancient times were content with being paid only when their treatment was successful (or so I heard), but I very much doubt that this mode of payment can be

Spammer made me laugh today

The following was the signature of an advance fee fraud attempt: Yours Respectfully, Capt Aziz Hassan NOTE; I AM NOT AN ISLAMIC EXTREMIST, I AM MODEST. I breathe a sigh of relief. Fancy an extremist spammer; what a horrible thought! :-) -R

Can't locate FuzzyOcr/Logging.pm in @INC (V3.5.1 problem)

for a pointer. Thanks! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter [29319] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all [29319] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG [29319] dbg: generic: SpamAssassin version 3.1.7 [29319] dbg: config: score set 0 chosen. [29319] dbg: util: running in taint

Re: Can't locate FuzzyOcr/Logging.pm in @INC (V3.5.1 problem) - SOLVED

. ;-) Thanks for your help. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter

Some rule files' PGP signatures are reported as bad

. Could you please check/renew the signatures? Thanks. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter

Re: Rule for subjects that start with a whitespace

a realistic chance of success. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter

Re: Rule for subjects that start with a whitespace

. subject = Subject: unstructured CRLF If I understand this correctly, the field body always starts with the character after the colon, whitespace or not. I'm quite certain that many SW implementations share your point of view, though. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph

The source of all Internet spam

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050214.html I just *knew* it... :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Yours sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter HORUS-IT Ahornweg 10 D-57635 Oberirsen Tel +49 2686 987880 Fax +49 2686 987889 http://horus-it.de/

Re: German court rules e-mail blocking 'illegal'.

interference. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and if my summary of the case is misleading or just plain wrong, it is all my fault. Mea culpa. ;-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Yours sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter HORUS-IT Ahornweg 10 D-57635 Oberirsen Tel +49 2686 987880 Fax +49 2686 987889 http

Re: List headers

Rubin Bennett wrote: Please... stop mucking with the headers, or at the very least, let us know in advance when you're going to do it? Aye, the list ID should best not be changed without prior notification. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Yours sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter