Hai!
you E-Mails are confusing because in the From: you have
Karsten Bräckelmann
but in teh signature you write
guenther
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 14:09 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
you E-Mails are confusing because in the From: you have
Focus on the content!
Karsten Bräckelmann
That's my real name. :)
but in teh signature you write
Actually, my sig decodes to my full email address. ;)
guenther
That
On 21-May-2009, at 07:19, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Is it really that confusing? ;)
Nah, I figured it was a nickname of some sort. Heck, for all I knew
Guenther is a 'standard' nick for Karsten!
--
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it?
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for people with dead domains that still get a lot of spam,
If you have such a domain that you aren't using can you set the MX
Sorry, but that's not dead enough !
We used to have one domain (mi.iasf.cnr.it) under one organization (CNR).
When
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, and various HELO sins is
Marc Perkel 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 a considerable, diverse amount of ham.
How,
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 typos in
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 ISP smtp server in the
whitelist)
Can you let us know what that IP is please? Then Marc can
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, and
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
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 ISP smtp server in the
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 specific zombie software, as
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
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 ISP smtp server in the
whitelist)
On 20.05.09 13:41, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Can you let
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 ISP smtp server in the
whitelist)
Can you let us know what that IP is
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:
Can
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,
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:
Can you let us know what that
Marc Perkel 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...
I started querying the whitelist from spamassassin 4 hours ago. I
don't have a high volume of
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,
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... maybe I'm
wrong
Nope.
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...
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 20:06 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
If you are going to use the blacklist it works best if you also use
the tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com high numbered MX record as well
because that way my blacklist will pick up the spambots that are
targeting you. So feel free to use both.
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
I think it would be a very good idea to define dead¹ before setting 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 addresses¹, otherwise, for all intents and purposes,
especially this one, ³I¹m not dead yet².
On 19/05/09
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.
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
I think it would be a very good idea to define 'dead' before setting
or
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 for you! You are one up on the
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 is any domain that has not current legitimate
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 is any domain that has not
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 is
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 typos in history. ;-)
Other than
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
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 a considerable,
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
