http://pastebin.com/m7c1c17d
Interesting insofar as it appears to be whitelisted??? Is this some kind
of well known US email or hosting service?
Sane missed it, the dnsbl's have missed it and the content filtering has
missed it. So it's a tasty morsel of spam :-)
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 16:00 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/7/2009 3:42 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m7c1c17d
Interesting insofar as it appears to be whitelisted??? Is this some kind
of well known US email or hosting service?
Sane missed
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 22:12 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
frankly, nothing against them, yet if an organization really needs Return
Path to get their email through to mailboxes without rejection, then doesn't
the originator of the email have problems?
Of course they do! That's why ESP's exist -
My figures for date the UK in the last 72 hours: 118 mails
*all* HABEAS accredited.
==
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==
80.75.69.201
NOT WHITELISTED:
sa-other.bondedsender.org, resl.emailreg.org, plus.bondedsender.org,
ips.whitelisted.org
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 18:07 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
FYI, abuse@ is specified in RFC2142, and need not be explicitly listed
in the whois.
Thanks. I knew it was somewhere :-)
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 12:02 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Dec-2009, at 02:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
A truly clean company that always uses opt-in and never spams has
nothing to fear from any anti-spam measure.
Oh, that is CERTAINLY not true. It's not even true of just SpamAssassin
On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
act is to allow the spammers to send out the first mail.
The CAN-SPAM spiel is an American phenomena that holds questionable
relevance to the rest of the
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 15:57 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
In the UK I'm more interested in the offences sending UBE/UCE commits
under the Protection from Harassment Act, Section 42 of the
Telecommunications Act and possible offences under the Data Protection
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 00:18 -0800, jdow wrote:
From: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/03 20:55
On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:43, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:23 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:59 AM, rich
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 04:16 -0800, jdow wrote:
From: Yet Another Ninja sa-l...@alexb.ch
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/04 02:28
On 12/4/2009 10:57 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
FINAL
This is not a social club, it's a question and issues list for
Spamassassin. My question and issue
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:28 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
The correct answer will be precisely why this state of affairs exists.
- because developers think/have thought its a good idea.
- because nobody other than you makes such a noise about it. And YOU who
are so against, have you
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 06:55 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On 3-Dec-2009, at 23:06, R-Elists wrote:
certainly we understand your point here, yet what about accountability for
Return Path Inc (and other RPI companies) related rules in the default
Spamassassin configs?
My position on HABEAS is
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:50 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Qualifies what, that I get UBE that is Habeas Accredited? Should I start
with the 40 from 'DateTheuk' in the last 8 days?
Okay, let's be methodical. Let us indeed start with those
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:08 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
All this debate about 'legitimate' mail services like 'returnpath'
being abused by 'sneaky' spammers. How is that possible? There should be
easy ways to prevent it. Here's a few ideas:
As soon as any whitelist service like
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 12:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
That to one side, the default for a spam filter should not be to give
any weight to a white list unless the user modifies the config
themselves specifically. It can be seen to be suspicious and offering
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 18:11 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
This was raised as the IP appeared in HABEAS and for a few hours it
'vanished' from the list. It's back there now, but DateTheUk is now
pumping out via an ip six decimal places up on the last octet
I've just had another one to a honeypot - care of myspace. My dog does
not have a myspace account. Again, this is a harvested email address.
204.16.33.75WHITELISTED:sa-accredit.habeas.com
Whilst I appreciate that nobody would turn their noses up at taking $$$
from someone like
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:23 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:59 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
As for
insulting you - grow up. You work in the business of sending unwanted
junk email.
You haven't done any research at all, have you?
http://www.cauce.org/about/bod.html
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:06 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:38 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
So please, spare me the sob story about what a wonderful idea HABEAS is.
Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.
Who's sobbing? I'm merely explaining how it works
This is top of my list..
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Constant-Contact-Guide-email-Marketing/dp/0470503416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1259777127sr=8-1
Matus forgot to include this one he sent to me personally:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
terminology.
On 27.11.09 15:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Matus, why are you once more sending me off
Even after learning they still only score 3.6
Anything I can do?
On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I got '5' for it, at a push...
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.1 required=5.0
tests=RDNS_NONE,RELAYCOUNTRY_FR
X-Spam-RBL-Results:
dns
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
it's funny that you send me private copies for mail that DOES belong to
the list, but you refuse private mail even if it's does NOT belong here.
Well, I figured if you wanted to go on being an ignorant asshole and
keep doing it,
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:57 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I got '5' for it, at a push...
X-Spam-Report:
* 5.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_FR Relayed through France
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:18 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:14 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 28.11.09 10:12, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
The last time I checked no two email systems, be they home, soho or
enterprise, had to be the same. Unless, of course, you are now declaring
that everyone should be set
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:08 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
PS. If I were a spammer I would be laughing my ass off at this waste of
time. Every effort spent on fighting each other is less spent on them.
Actually, it's reasonable to argue that you are worse - you've just
contributed to an
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:06 -0500, Matt Garretson wrote:
Chris Owen wrote:
Why anyone replies to this guy about anything is beyond me.
Adding him to a kill file doesn't do much good when you still
see the other half of the argument.
+1
If you must feed the trolls, please at least
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:19 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
concept...
...Maybe it would be a better idea to spend that
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
Hello all,
I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
Even after learning they still only score 3.6
Anything I can do?
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:27 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 26.11.09 17:12, Allen Chen wrote:
I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year.
It's still running and filtering spam without any problems.
But I think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4.
So I am
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
terminology.
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*. I pointed out that
RBL is trademark just to
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:17 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
priceless reply-to
Priceless indeed. Everybody else can
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 08:57 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
Alex
NO NO NO NO NO!
Drop has the effect
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 17:34 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
R-Elists wrote:
on a much more important note, can those on the list that have a good
handle
on better filtering spam and/or UCE from
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 19:20 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 25 nov 2009 18:55:11 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
Any more ranges most welcome :-)
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
Very good. That was nearly funny :-) Why don't you add:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 0.0.0.0/0 -j
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
Alex
NO NO NO NO NO!
Drop has the effect of tarpitting them :-) As the Supremes sang;
Set me free why don't you baby? You just keep me
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:17 +0100, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
Habeas (nowdays ReturnPath) certifies their clients, forces them to provide
unsubscription options in their advertising messages, etc. If
there wasnt any unsubscribe option then contact their support/abuse team.
They list many important
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 00:23 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On 24-Nov-2009, at 15:23, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk
Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
We've been through
Thanks to Matus for the explanation, LuKreme for the suggestion on
scoring and Hajdu for the contact details. I am obliged to you and thank
you for your time.
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:08 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk
wrote:
Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
indicator of spam. It does
I think this may have been answered before, but I can't find it in the
archives.
Custom rules can be kept in /etc/spamassassin/whateva.cf files no
problem. I would like to keep some rules separate for maintenance, by
keeping rules I write in /etc/spamassassin/custom/, and some that
friends write
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 17:10 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
man sa-update
Thanks, but all that says is making use of:
--updatedir
Will allow rules to be downloaded to a different directory.
What I'm looking to do is have SA look in these directories in addition
to the default locations. I don't
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 14:17 -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi,
What I'm looking to do is have SA look in these directories in addition
to the default locations. I don't have a problem putting rules there
Benny. I have a problem getting SA to look there for them :-)
Are you talking about doing
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:29 -0800, Mark Hedges wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
Hi. I've set up my own rbldnsd server. It's responding
to queries correctly, for example, I am trying to block
the server that this message comes from, 64.22.103.163.
I forgot to say, I'm
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:21 +1000, Res wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating.
Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week,
BRBL has them listed :)
You neglected to trim
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:00 +, Justin Mason wrote:
First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus
does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs.
Is that a core feature of spamassassin Just in? Is it necessary to have
that data? Will 'Hey, I noticed
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:08 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:07 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam and others.
I'm inclined to think it's *not* clean and is viral.
EXAMPLE
http://pastebin.com/m730f90e9
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 20:34 +, Justin Mason wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:07 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
online connection, because you would
Linux system.
On 13.11.09 08:38, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I think you may have your Windows -v- Linux mixed up and this kind of urban
myth
belongs in the battles that go on in the COLA Flame Wars (that often
surface around
the release of a new Windo$e)
Since I didn't clearly
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:40 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am I the only one who thints that issues clearly off-topic should be sent
off-list?
Your response was to correct an onlist reply to an onlist remark. Is
there some reason why you would feel it appropriate to off-list that?
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com rahlqu...@gmail.com:
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
That's not needed. Why are you
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
old gas.
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just unsubscribe
Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially when the
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 07:56 -0500, Casartello, Thomas wrote:
I’ve been getting a lot of non-scoring spam coming from hotmail over
the last couple weeks. It’s one user that’s been complaining about it.
Here’s a few samples:
{serious ascii murder commited}
I could not stop laughing at this
snip
Running those through my SA gets the biggest hit for the second example
with the Indian link in the body. But that's a custom rule kindly given
to me by of one of the good people on this list.
I'm more concerned with this:
X-Originating-IP: [189.69.146.53]
In Brazil yet my relay module
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 17:12 +, RW wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:09:18 +
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
snip
Running those through my SA gets the biggest hit for the second
example with the Indian link in the body. But that's a custom rule
kindly given
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:39 +, Chip M. wrote:
Ugh. I just checked Twitter, and no SPF record. :(
No?
What's this?
;; ANSWER SECTION:
twitter.com.600 IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:128.121.145.168
ip4:128.121.146.128/27 mx ptr a:postmaster.twitter.com
mx:one.textdrive.com
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 23:54 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
I just now found a phish in one of my spamtraps, no surprise there.
The surprising thing is that it was sent out via a messagelabs.com
mailserver, complete with headers indicating that it passed their virus
checks.
At my end spamassassin
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 10:55 +, Ned Slider wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
RUSSIAN_LINKS BODY: link to .ru
Appears to miss the example:
http://pastebin.com/m7ae0f8ec
Unless I'm missing something ?
Well, lets see your RUSSIAN_LINKS rule as it hits fine on my narod
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 22:31 +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
We regularly experience SA crashes on a Ubuntu Hardy machine. The setup is as
follows:
Postfix (2.5.1) - SpamAssassin Milter (0.3.1-6) - SpamAssassin
(3.2.4-1ubuntu1.1)
The milter is run like this:
I don't see a great deal of spam from Hotmail, but often get it with
headers looking like this:
X-Originating-IP: [123.160.198.207]
From: joannie nolin crevett...@msn.nullcom
To: clo...@skipbarber.nullcom, kantan...@gmail.nullcom,
preiswunderland...@web.dde, h...@interpoint24.dde,
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:29 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:46 +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m53a550ce
Somewhat unfortunately seen coming out of The Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute.
Looking at it objectively there is little for a filter to go
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:35 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:59 +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I don't see a great deal of spam from Hotmail, but often get it with
headers looking like this:
X-Originating-IP: [123.160.198.207]
From: joannie nolin crevett
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 08:05 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 12:53 +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:29 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 07:46 +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m53a550ce
Somewhat unfortunately
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 13:58 +, RW wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:59:24 +
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
A couple of observations;
123.160.198.207 - is on the PBL {deep in the heart of China} so is
possible to extend the network tests to look for fairly constant
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 16:30 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 13:58 +, RW wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:59:24 +
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
A couple of observations
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 18:49 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 03:33:59PM +, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Uh, SpamAssassin parses X-Originating-IP and friends just fine. Of course
PBL isn't going to hit it, since it's an lastexternal rule.
That has totally escaped
Anyone else noticing lots of DNS timeouts on the Barracuda List today?
Looks like it's really struggling.
Perhaps they are hosting it on their own hardware now LOL.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 15:10 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Terry Carmen wrote:
approval to a plan to permit Web addresses in characters other than the
Latin alphabet, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Korean.
I'd be *really* surprised if these became popular. The
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:08 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 27-Oct-2009, at 04:53, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Why have any geocities specific rules any more if geocities doesn't
exist? It's not as if spammers can host their websites on geocities
anymore so there's no reason why a spammer would
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:50 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:42, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:08 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 27-Oct-2009, at 04:53, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Why have any geocities specific rules any more
I just found this one working:
http://uk.geocities.com/midsomerland/midsomerland_indexone.htm
so providence would suggest leaving things alone.
Anyone else seeing these today? Or seen them recently?
http://pastebin.com/m4e25954f
score=0.1
Subject was real neat:
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?B?WW91IFdvbiCjMQ==?=,750,000.00 GBP
You Won £750,000.00 GBP {surprised this did not bite}
End of the message is missing on the five of them that I've
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:38 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I was just spammed by T-mobile (UK). Seems incredible that an otherwise
reputable company would sink so low - does anyone know if spamming
(given the right conditions) is legal in the UK ?
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Recently I've caught lots
I need to add this is in ADDITION to guidelines mostly aimed at junk
faxes published here and already quoted:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/privacy_and_electronic_communications.aspx
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 09:30 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
[...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
supporting a company that profits from sending spam
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 19:58 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
In other words, how comes you're only venting about the companies you
despise, and don't even mention the whitelist with a single word?
guenther
You need to deal with your personality issues - this is *not* about *you*
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 12:51 +0100, RW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:46:42 +0100
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
linuxmagic sa...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Incidently
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
linuxmagic sa...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam folder,
produces zero backscatter
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:45 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, linuxmagic sa...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
I really like this quote from their sales web site:
Now you can have MagicSpam spam protection for your Postfix (Linux)
Mail Servers. Complete with one click
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 00:51 -0700, franc wrote:
Hello,
i just installed spamassassin 3.2.4 (running on Perl 5.8.8) with postfix
2.5.1 on a Ubuntu 8.04.
Now i want to use a personal blacklist an i put into
/etc/spamassassin/myblacklist.cf
an put into it:
blacklist_from
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 01:07 -0700, franc wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
To do this, somewhere near the end of your main.cf:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
File /etc/postfix/header_checks looks like this:
/^From:.*whoe...@aol.com/ REJECT sender blacklisted
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 01:07 -0700, franc wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
To do this, somewhere near the end of your main.cf:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
File /etc/postfix/header_checks looks like this:
/^From:.*whoe...@aol.com/ REJECT sender blacklisted
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 03:53 -0700, franc wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Create the blacklist file:
# vim /etc/spamassassin/blacklist.cf
blacklist_from *...@aol.com
blacklist_from drop.t...@aol.com
Test it for errors:
# spamassassin --lint
Restart Spamassassin
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, moussmo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Justin Mason a écrit :
In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more
recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help
out.
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 08:06 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
else fight sender forgies in mta, and only accept spf pass, if sender
domain is not with spf record count how many ham mails is comming from
this domain, if none, then domain blacklist this sender, open again if
there is spf later
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 20:02 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do user unknown rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 01:06 +0200, mouss wrote:
...
in short, whatever jeff says, spamhaus is the one. the fundamental
concept is not how many spam it blocks, but how much do I trust it.
Exactly!
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 00:51 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Aug-2009, at 16:55, MySQL Student wrote:
So perhaps instead of adding another RBL, maybe some admins need to
consider adding in some HELO checking / rejection.
Can you explain a bit more here? What are you checking for, that the
host
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 06:39 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I have to agree with LuKreme, my overnight had 446 blocked prior to RBL,
and only 387 by RBL. Again, noted that 'Barracuda' missed 43, 35 of
these Spamhaus caught - so for me Spamhaus is still better
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:36 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
But this is all *OT* and has no relevance to SA. Why this
list was spammed with an unscientific spin of a claim in the
first instance just shows the dark hand of Barracuda at work.
Richard,
i imagine you are far more
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 09:21 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
Richard Wrote:
No. Here is why. When someone posts a Barracuda send-up that
is questionable, it will still end up in the archives. It is,
therefore, relevant that any counter argument and supporting
material be archived with it for
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
