Noel Butler wrote:
er you do know that's one of my personal domains (and yes a
community service one) don't you? sure as heck is not a commercial one,
no money making on ausics :)
My apologies, I jumped to a conclusion.
I do use the same approach on the commercial side though, and always
Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com writes:
On 9/16/2012 1:37 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote:
DW better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks
Better filtering by not scoring them as a known spam source!
Correct me if I'm wrong
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 10:38 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Noel Butler wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 10:52 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
I see more spam[1] from any one of Hotmail, Yahoo, or GMail than
I do coming through the whole set of email service providers I've
IDed (both email-hosting
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Axb wrote:
why should we treat messagelabs any different, they are no more special
than anyone else who connects to you.
Depending on your user base, by blocking MessageLabs you'd miss LOTS of
corporate mail. A man his dog setup may not see FPs from
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 13:30 +0100, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Axb,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 1:18:59 PM, you wrote:
A They are 100% whitehat
Why do we see repeat spams from the same customers of theirs? Further
they never even acknowledge reports of spams from their servers.
On 09/17, Noel Butler wrote:
I'm sure every network running a mail server would like to assume they are
100% whitehat too. I see no reason to treat them special, just like gmail
who think they are above it all, I wont include hotmail in that, as they
I suppose you think you're capable
Noel Butler wrote:
It is the exact same approach we all take and should take to all
spammers, if mail.foobar.com was hitting you with shitloads of
spam from someuser.example.com, someotheruser.example.net and so
on, you take out mail.foobar.com, because THEY are the mongrels
that connect
On 09/17, Kris Deugau wrote:
As an ISP mail admin, I **CANNOT** afford to block legitimate mail
from any source, and if I see a report that a legitimate mail was
blocked by any local rules or DNSBL data, I change the local rule or
delete the offending local DNSBL entry ASAP.
Some times I envy
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 10:44 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 09/17, Noel Butler wrote:
I'm sure every network running a mail server would like to assume they
are
100% whitehat too. I see no reason to treat them special, just like gmail
who think they are above it all, I
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 10:52 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
I see more spam[1] from any one of Hotmail, Yahoo, or GMail than I do
coming through the whole set of email service providers I've IDed
(both email-hosting and bulkmailers) of all stripes.
As an ISP mail admin, I **CANNOT** afford to
Hello John,
Saturday, September 15, 2012, 11:28:03 PM, you wrote:
JH If you subscribe to mail filtering services from a company like
JH Messagelabs
But Messagelabs also offer spam sending services to their paying
customers.
--
Best regards,
Niamh
On 9/16/2012 1:24 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Saturday, September 15, 2012, 11:28:03 PM, you wrote:
JH If you subscribe to mail filtering services from a company like
JH Messagelabs
But Messagelabs also offer spam sending services to their paying
customers.
Right, but is there any evidence
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote:
DW better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks
Better filtering by not scoring them as a known spam source!
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpxUeuRoUUZ0.pgp
Description:
On 9/16/2012 1:37 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote:
DW better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks
Better filtering by not scoring them as a known spam source!
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but trusted_networks will score them
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:50:39 AM, you wrote:
DW I'm having trouble seeing the downside here, but I might be missing
DW something obvious...?
DNS blacklist checks will never query for hosts on these networks.
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 01:50 -0600, Dave Warren wrote:
On 9/16/2012 1:37 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote:
DW better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks
Better filtering by not scoring them as a known spam source!
On 09/16/2012 01:24 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 01:50 -0600, Dave Warren wrote:
On 9/16/2012 1:37 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Dave,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote:
DW better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks
Better filtering by not scoring
Hello Axb,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 1:18:59 PM, you wrote:
A They are 100% whitehat
Why do we see repeat spams from the same customers of theirs? Further
they never even acknowledge reports of spams from their servers.
--
Best regards,
Niamh
On 09/16/2012 02:30 PM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Axb,
Sunday, September 16, 2012, 1:18:59 PM, you wrote:
A They are 100% whitehat
Why do we see repeat spams from the same customers of theirs? Further
they never even acknowledge reports of spams from their servers.
no idea - but if it's
It's not a special problem with messagelabs. It's in general a problem
with all of these mass marketing mailers. In my opinion all of these
companies/networks never should be placed in any whitelist.
If they get blacklisted, so what? _They_ earn the money, manking has
the pain.
But - also in
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Lutz Petersen wrote:
It's not a special problem with messagelabs. It's in general a problem
with all of these mass marketing mailers. In my opinion all of these
companies/networks never should be placed in any whitelist.
Point of order: The trusted hosts list is _NOT_ a
On 9/12/2012 1:53 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:58 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
I've seen multiple spam from messagelabs
Multiple spams _sent by_ MessageLabs, or multiple spams that they did not
catch and block? If the latter, that's no reason not to add them to
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 16:37 +0200, Dave Warren wrote:
Niamh summed it up nicely, sent by their clients, using their
servers, therefore, Messagelabs servers are emitting spam and IMHO
should never ever be whitelisted, ever.
While that may well be the case, they're still a candidate
Hello Helmut,
Monday, September 10, 2012, 7:34:31 PM, you wrote:
HS MessageLabs
That well know source of spam!
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgprarNY0FTUL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hello John,
Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 1:58:51 AM, you wrote:
JH Multiple spams _sent by_ MessageLabs
Sent by messagelabs customers using the messagelabs servers
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpYKgjzKSQTO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:58 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
I've seen multiple spam from messagelabs
Multiple spams _sent by_ MessageLabs, or multiple spams that they did not
catch and block? If the latter, that's no reason not to add them to
trusted_networks.
Niamh summed it up nicely,
On 09/10, Helmut Schneider wrote:
If I understood you correctly I'd need to add all relays of
MessageLabs to trusted_networks and also track any IP address
changes...
In theory, you need to do this for all DNSxL lookups.
In practise they all resolve fine to *.messagelabs.com.
I
Hi,
Short story:
Can I exclude hosts from RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW/MED/HI?
Long story:
We are using an external provider to filter SPAM. We also use SA
internally. Sometimes mails are not recognized as SPAM externally and
forwarded to SA. The mailrelays of the external provider are listed in
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Helmut Schneider wrote:
Short story:
Can I exclude hosts from RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW/MED/HI?
Long story:
We are using an external provider to filter SPAM. We also use SA
internally. Sometimes mails are not recognized as SPAM externally and
forwarded to SA. The mailrelays of the
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Helmut Schneider wrote:
Short story:
Can I exclude hosts from RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW/MED/HI?
Long story:
We are using an external provider to filter SPAM. We also use SA
internally. Sometimes mails are not recognized as SPAM externally
Dave Funk wrote:
If he's got his trusted_networks configured correctly (has his MX/relays
listed) shouldn't that take care of the problem?
It looks like RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED examines firstuntrusted and if he trusts
his MX/relays correctly then this shouldn't be happening.
Yes, exactly.
We
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Helmut Schneider wrote:
Short story:
Can I exclude hosts from RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW/MED/HI?
Long story:
We are using an external provider to filter SPAM. We also use SA
internally. Sometimes mails are not recognized as SPAM externally
and
Dave Funk wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Helmut Schneider wrote:
Short story:
Can I exclude hosts from RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW/MED/HI?
Long story:
We are using an external provider to filter SPAM. We also use SA
internally. Sometimes mails
Helmut Schneider wrote:
If I understood you correctly I'd need to add all relays of MessageLabs
to trusted_networks and also track any IP address changes...
If you're using them as your primary spam filter provider, you should
have information somewhere on which IP block(s) your mail will go
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote:
It looks like RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED examines firstuntrusted and if he
trusts his MX/relays correctly then this shouldn't be happening.
In general, setting up the trustpath correctly is sufficient.
If I understood you
Kris Deugau wrote:
Helmut Schneider wrote:
If I understood you correctly I'd need to add all relays of
MessageLabs to trusted_networks and also track any IP address
changes...
If you don't have that info, and their support refuses to tell you,
tailing your inbound logs for a while
Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de
wrote:
It looks like RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED examines firstuntrusted and if he
trusts his MX/relays correctly then this shouldn't be happening.
In general, setting up the trustpath correctly is
Helmut Schneider wrote:
Kris Deugau wrote:
Helmut Schneider wrote:
but if their support refuses to tell you, I'd be looking at
switching providers
I guess they would if they knew themselves. But project switch is
ongoing... :)
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 18:34 +, Helmut Schneider wrote:
If I understood you correctly I'd need to add all relays of MessageLabs
to trusted_networks and also track any IP address changes...
I wouldn't.
I've seen multiple spam from messagelabs
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Noel Butler wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 18:34 +, Helmut Schneider wrote:
If I understood you correctly I'd need to add all relays of MessageLabs
to trusted_networks and also track any IP address changes...
I wouldn't.
I've seen multiple spam from messagelabs
On 9/10/12 7:36 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
I wouldn't.
I've seen multiple spam from messagelabs
As I understand it, trusted_networks doesn't mean networks you trust not
to send spam; rather, it means networks you trust not to have forged
their Received: headers. Adding the
41 matches
Mail list logo
