http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7780
It can be quite frustrating to run an ISP and comply with the often
arbitrary, strange, and I suspect contradictory demands of the likes
of SORBS and Trend Micro. An ISP Abuse handler vents in this article.
{^_^}
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7780
It can be quite frustrating to run an ISP and comply with the often
arbitrary, strange, and I suspect contradictory demands of the likes
of SORBS and Trend Micro. An ISP Abuse handler vents in this article.
SORBS
Res wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7780
It can be quite frustrating to run an ISP and comply with the often
arbitrary, strange, and I suspect contradictory demands of the likes
of SORBS and Trend Micro. An ISP Abuse handler vents in this
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provide us with your mail. You can scan your own
Warren, for the next releases until RTM, can we keep the spamassassin.spec
at real_version 3.0.0 instead of adding the release type? I usually do a
full make and make test run, but then build an rpm and install that. If
the real_version contains non-digits other than a dot that fails, so each
On 12/20/2009 09:20 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:06:11 -0600
Dave Pooser dave...@pooserville.com wrote:
share the code so that some of us could auto-generate rules based on
our own ham/spam mailstreams, and then share those rules with you for
possible SOUGHT inclusion?
I think that's already done, though not well
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
SORBS would only put you in their DUL listing for anything resembling
hosts that are dynamic,
AFAIK, also ranges that were declared to by dynamic, e.g. in whois
info. I once had a range allocated which had previously been declared
to be dynamic, and it
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Sunday, 2009/December/20 06:20
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your
On Dec 19, 2009, at 9:23 AM, RobertH wrote:
you know, with all the duking it out on the list over some methods
and such,
where is Jo Rhett when you need him?
he was always short and to the point...
:-)
Eh? Whut? (in the manner of someone woken from sleep)
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance :
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I'm just a touch naive here; but, it seems to me it should be possible,
somehow, to build running spamd daemons, one with the regular rules
and one with the mass check rules.
There's nothing special about masscheck rules. Masscheck is just running
the current
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
The downside is that this is not confirmed ham and confirmed spam.
(nod) Exactly. And that is what is needed to do a masscheck...
I wonder how much companies would pay for a part time SpamAssassin
honcho who can be trusted (bonded?) and can write SARE-ish
:-)
Eh? Whut? (in the manner of someone woken from sleep)
--
Jo Rhett
Jo,
sometimes we just need some input from you...
overall though, i am guessing that you havent needed anything special from
the list for a lllooonnn time
- rh
On Dec 20, 2009, at 10:12 PM, RobertH wrote:
sometimes we just need some input from you...
I'm sure that this isn't true of all participants ;-)
overall though, i am guessing that you havent needed anything
special from
the list for a lllooonnn time
Nope. It works. I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
