On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
it can be measured by finding the WL rule's page on ruleqa.spamassassin.org,
then examining the OVERLAP section for overlaps with BL rules.
I'd expect that most whitelist operators will automatically de-list any IP
which appears on a
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, J.D. Falk wrote:
That's IT! PORNOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION!
Sorry. Already been tried.
But no matter what we called it, the users still didn't appreciate their
computers or network going down on them. :)
- C
PS. Let's not get started on how hard disks are smaller than
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Res wrote:
the only person here at present trolling is you, so for F's sake STFU
and stop generating massive noise ratio
(nod) Done.
- C
On 18-Dec-2009, at 00:24, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small amount
on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by default.
I guess that the real issue that I have with the whole HABEAS thing is the
magnitude of the default
On fre 18 dec 2009 08:13:31 CET, Christian Brel wrote
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
problem. Perhaps this can be reviewed and given a zero score by default?
see dnswl homepage, there is NONE, LOW, MED, HI, the
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Reputation type rules (such as DNSWLs) are probably the only (or
certainly one of the very few) types of rules that you can weight
heavily negatively. This is due to the nature of an open source
product (or
On 18/12/2009 3:09 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On 18-Dec-2009, at 00:24, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small amount
on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by default.
I guess that the real issue that I have with the whole
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
Daryl
Then fix it and show who really is in charge of this project?
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have
any
On 18/12/2009 3:32 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Reputation type rules (such as DNSWLs) are probably the only (or
certainly one of the very few) types of rules that you can weight
heavily negatively. This is
On fre 18 dec 2009 10:07:55 CET, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from local.cf in
spamassassin
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
pgpfoovQHfqN5.pgp
Description: PGP
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:32, Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
wrote:
the issue of having that score
reduced in favour of a known commercial bulk mailer is undesirable.
The trouble is you seem to consider ALL commercial senders to be
spammers. That's just not
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:07:55 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
If everything is open and transparent give the default user the
option to *enable* them and score them zero, unless - of course -
there is some kind of logical reason for these mad scoring spam
assisting
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:07, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
I stand firm on my opinion that our principle of safe for most users
is
the logical reason for including DNSWLs.
Just to be clear, despite my dislike of the HABEAS rules, I am not a
tinfoil-hat nutter thinking
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:21:00 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:32, Christian Brel
brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
wrote:
the issue of having that score
reduced in favour of a known commercial bulk mailer is undesirable.
The trouble is you
On fre 18 dec 2009 10:23:48 CET, Christian Brel wrote
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
I found it much more useful to apply them as blocklists and give the a
+4/+8 myself - but that's a personal choice.
and No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL is also a personal
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:33:31 +0100
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On fre 18 dec 2009 10:23:48 CET, Christian Brel wrote
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
I found it much more useful to apply them as blocklists and give
the a +4/+8 myself - but that's a personal
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have
any factual foundation.
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
Daryl
Then fix it and show who really is in charge of this project?
It's been
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
Daniel J McDonald dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
dnswl.org does offer trusted_networks-formatted files (separated by our trust
levels), but beware of bug 5931 for older versions of SA:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5931
-- Matthias
Am 18.12.2009 um 10:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On fre 18 dec 2009 10:07:55 CET,
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
If we had more mass-check data from a wider number of mail recipients
maybe it would change things, statistically, maybe it wouldn't. New
mass-check contributors are always welcome. They take very little
effort to manage once you've set it up (I ignore mine for
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 12:53 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
Daniel J McDonald dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:12:06 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's
posts,
You need to resort to
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from the
provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I confused?
Wow. People are running down ReturnPath and they don't even have a clear
idea of what RP *does*? How lame is that?
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:49:41 -0600
Daniel J McDonald dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:49 +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from
the provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I
confused?
Wow. People are running
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Why not default them to zero and include in the release notes/man that
there are whitelists and they can *enable* them?
Go read the archives, troll.
- C
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists
with the delivery of bulk commercial mail in an anti-spam application!
If the sender is relying on such rules to keep the mailout under the
radar then clearly there is something very wrong
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:26:28 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists
with the delivery of bulk commercial mail in an anti-spam
application! If the sender is relying on such
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard evidence
of FNs will go much further towards making your point than name
calling will.
The name calling being?
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
problem. Perhaps
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent collusion is
abusive. Don't be surprised if people are abusive in return.
That is your choice of words - not mine. It is interesting that when
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from
the provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I
confused?
Wow. People are running down ReturnPath and they don't even have a
clear
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine, pedant.
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
- C
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It
might also allow people to get past the high negative score for the
whitelists.
Hm. I *like* that
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine, pedant.
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
- C
Perhaps I
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:03:38 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
You need to resort to abuse for what particular reason?
Repeatedly accusing the SA developers of fraudulent collusion is
abusive. Don't be surprised if people are
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on list.
It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous postings that answered
the question the first time(s) you (or someone else) asked it
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on
list.
It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We are
all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 6 year old children'.
Good. Then stop talking like them.
Please feel free to act like an adult and end the personal attacks, or,
act
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices.
I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'. :)
- C
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:12, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for what particular
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We
are all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 6 year old
children'.
Good. Then stop talking
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:29:40 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices.
I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'.
or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from
local.cf in spamassassin
Benny
can you help me / us better understand what you are getting at here and why?
something you already do or implement?
i wish i knew a better way to ask the question(s) so that you could better
help
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, yes.
If it's that big a problem for you in real life, then you
should be able to provide FNs to the masscheck corpora that
will _prove_ these scores are too generous.
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard
evidence of
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 01:07
On 18/12/2009 3:32 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
...
From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small
amount
From: John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:12
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:56 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I might agree with some small portion of our resident troll's posts,
You need to resort to abuse for
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 07:42:55 PM CET, R-Elists wrote
or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from
local.cf in spamassassin
can you help me / us better understand what you are getting at here and why?
example:
trusted_networks 127.128.0.0/16
and then if 127.128.128.128 is listed in
From: John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 08:07
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard evidence
of FNs will go much
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine, pedant.
Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :)
OK, (Problem Exists
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:21
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit
when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It
might also allow people to get
R-Elists wrote:
here is a chance for possible help in more areas than just this specific
ruleset issue...
i asked Rob some time ago if he could write a script that would check logs
and report if a certain rule was effective or not by itself vrs if other
rules hit with it and maybe that rule
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:40:40 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Go read the archives, troll.
All of them or do you have something specific, troll?
Fine, fine,
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have the whitelist
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 19:04, Jason Bertoch ja...@i6ix.com wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the IP
Or we could have
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But,
people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably
already overridden them.
Again, I make a note that my concern is for the thousands who install a
'pre-canned'
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative
score for the whitelists.
Is there a way
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:46
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But,
people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably
already overridden them.
Again, I
On 18/12/2009 2:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
If a spammer gets an IP blacklisted, at the least DNSWL and
HABEAS
should make note of this and remove the
On 18/12/2009 4:46 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores.
But, people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have
probably already overridden them.
Again, I make a note that my concern is for
On 18/12/2009 8:35 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
If we had more mass-check data from a wider number of mail recipients
maybe it would change things, statistically, maybe it wouldn't. New
mass-check contributors are always welcome. They take very little
effort to manage
On 18/12/2009 2:44 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
R-Elists wrote:
here is a chance for possible help in more areas than just this specific
ruleset issue...
i asked Rob some time ago if he could write a script that would check logs
and report if a certain rule was effective or not by itself vrs if
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative
score for the whitelists.
it can be measured by
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only
hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough
problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative
the only person here at present trolling is you, so for F's sake STFU
and stop generating massive noise ratio
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices?
Hey, J D! Please post and give
the mud when the topic has moved on?
I wonder how long the thread will be left at the new 're: habeas -
tainted white list'? How many will post using it? Or if those black
helicopters and MIB's will seek to put a stop to it?
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may
if you do a search on emailreg.org and
see it in the archives, it's probably not fair to drag their name
through the mud when the topic has moved on?
I wonder how long the thread will be left at the new 're: habeas -
tainted white list'? How many will post using it? Or if those black
helicopters
I believe on the whole Warren Togami's posting about a
whitelist performance on a masscheck settles the affair.
White lists are very reliable. They are also very unnecessary
within SpamAssassin. So perhaps the whole topic can die.
I also note that the people complaining about the white
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:37 -0700
J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
It's also fair to say any ESP such as Return Path taking money to
deliver mail should be optimising it {or offering advice on
optimisation) so it does
From: R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 11:21
I believe on the whole Warren Togami's posting about a
whitelist performance on a masscheck settles the affair.
White lists are very reliable. They are also very unnecessary
within SpamAssassin. So perhaps the whole
On 17/12/2009 2:21 PM, R-Elists wrote:
...based upon Togami's data processing, the biggest thing that comes to mind
is this...
*IF* these or similar rulesets are not truly not making a difference one way
or the other, then why are they there?
why do we really need them or the other
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:51:35 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
I think the current score changes are a good step. Another step may
be including in the release notes that there are whitelists and that
people may want to disable them by score whatever rules (a list of
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:46:03 +1300
Michael Hutchinson packetl...@ping.net.nz wrote:
Everyone else started carrying on about the Habeas rules being
present at all, when it is more than within their power to disable
those rules.
But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists
with
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 22:11
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:51:35 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
I think the current score changes are a good step. Another step may
be including in the release
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 22:22
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:46:03 +1300
Michael Hutchinson packetl...@ping.net.nz wrote:
Everyone else started carrying on about the Habeas rules being
present at all, when it is more than
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
problem. Perhaps this can be reviewed and given a zero
On 18/12/2009 1:11 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:51:35 -0500
Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
I think the current score changes are a good step. Another step may
be including in the release notes that there are whitelists and that
people may want to
On 18/12/2009 1:22 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
The issues here are clear:
*The inclusion of white list that pretty much favours a single
commercial mail organisation.
At present, to my knowledge Return Path is the only organization which
has approached us for inclusion in SpamAssassin. We would
On 18/12/2009 2:13 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On he subject of Spammy whitelists...
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low
* trust
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
84 matches
Mail list logo
