Oliver Welter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see
http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?82.113.121.16]
1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web
server
Cedric Knight, GreenNet writes:
Oliver Welter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see
http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?82.113.121.16]
1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:26 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 17.11.08 18:15, Mark Martinec wrote:
I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
alerts
It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
get an SPF-pass. Seems guys
Karsten Bräckelmann schrieb:
snip /
In short: More details and evidence, please. :)
guenther
Dear Guenther,
thanks and sorry for the late answer. In the meantime, I trained the
filter with a lot mor ham and spam, and now it works quite well. It
seems so, that I definiteley had
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:26 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 17.11.08 18:15, Mark Martinec wrote:
I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
alerts
It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
get an SPF-pass. Seems
Oliver Welter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see
http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?82.113.121.16]
1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web
Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote:
Google Anti-phishing-email-reply
(http://code.google.com/p/anti-phishing-e-mail-reply) contains reply
addresses being used in phishing campaigns. I would like to use
blacklist_from and blacklist_to for these addresses.
snip
The correct URL is:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:01 +, Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote:
Google Anti-phishing-email-reply
(http://code.google.com/p/anti-phishing-e-mail-reply) contains reply
addresses being used in phishing campaigns. I would like to use
blacklist_from and blacklist_to for these addresses. I was
Also since we do not mark anything as Spam coming from our network
(i.e. in local.cf we have trusted_networks 161.74/16)
how do I ensure that reply_to these mail addresses will work?
What I meant that how can I stop people replying to e-mails from our
network, given that we don't tag them as
Google Anti-phishing-email-reply
(http://code.google.com/p/anti-phishing-e-mail-reply) contains reply
addresses being used in phishing campaigns. I would like to use
blacklist_from and blacklist_to for these addresses. I was wondering
whether blacklist_to and blacklist_form is still available in
Is this news true ( spams down by 75% )
http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/128340%2cspam-volumes-drop-75-percent-in-a-day.aspx
It seems that it is (at least from where I'm sitting). Spam caught on our
filters dropped by around about 31% on 11/11/2008. Graphing the about of
spam
Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:00:06 -:
Also since we do not mark anything as Spam coming from our network
(i.e. in local.cf we have trusted_networks 161.74/16)
That doesn't mean not mark as spam!
What I meant that how can I stop people replying to e-mails from
No I am talking about mails to our University with fake (or undesirable)
address so that some of our users can reply-to them with their identities, i.e.
usernames passwords and there by allowing the spammer to steal the identities.
Regards
Sujit
Sujit Choudhury
-Original Message-
Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote:
No I am talking about mails to our University with fake (or undesirable) address so
that some of our users can reply-to them with their identities, i.e. usernames
passwords and there by allowing the spammer to steal the identities.
What I meant that how can
Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:01:27 -:
No I am talking about mails to our University with fake (or undesirable)
address so that some of our users can reply-to them with their identities,
i.e. usernames passwords and there by allowing the spammer to steal
the
I noticed the size of my black list dropped by more that 1/3 this last week.
Hi All
Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
error. Here's SA header message:
* 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
Received: from unknown (HELO cronus.intersessions.com) (74.220.16.65)
As far as I can tell
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 18:22 -0500, Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi All
Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
error. Here's SA header message:
* 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
Received: from unknown (HELO
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
error. Here's SA header message:
* 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no
rDNS
Received: from unknown (HELO cronus.intersessions.com) (74.220.16.65)
As far as I can tell
On Sat, November 22, 2008 00:22, Jeff Koch wrote:
As far as I can tell 'cronus.intersessions.com' has reverse setup and it
matches 74.220.16.65.
What am I missing?
http://www.robtex.com/ip/74.220.16.65.html see the graph, no PTR, and no A there
On Sat, November 22, 2008 00:31, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
74/8 was removed from the Bogon list in 2005, but maybe the recipient
hasn't updated their bogon acl in bind...
rdns have nothing to do with rbl
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Hi Benny:
How do I correct this problem? When I run 'nslookup 74.220.16.65' from
various machines it shows the correct answer.
At 07:02 PM 11/21/2008, you wrote:
On Sat, November 22, 2008 00:22, Jeff Koch wrote:
As far as I can tell 'cronus.intersessions.com' has reverse setup and it
RDNS_NONE is defined by the following rules:
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE !__CGATE_RCVD)
header __RDNS_NONEX-Spam-Relays-Untrusted =~ /^[^\]]+ rdns= /
header __CGATE_RCVD Received =~ /by \S+ \(CommuniGate Pro/
OK, I'm going to have one more go. The RDNS_NONE rule is triggered
On Sat, November 22, 2008 01:41, Jeff Koch wrote:
How do I correct this problem? When I run 'nslookup 74.220.16.65' from
various machines it shows the correct answer.
your computer, your problem :)
i showed 2 links, should i show more ?
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ?
How do I correct this problem? When I run 'nslookup 74.220.16.65' from various
machines it shows the correct answer.
dig cronus.intersessions.com. @ns.intersessions.com. +short
74.220.16.65
dig -x 74.220.16.65 @ns.intersessions.com. +short
cronus.intersessions.com.
so there is PTR+A match.
Hi Benny:
Reverse DNS seems to work via dig and nslookup but the links, although
indicating a problem, were not terribly helpful in explaining the cause.
Apparently, you know more than I do. Perhaps you could reveal a little more
info so we can get this straightened out. I would really
Jeff Koch a écrit :
Hi All
Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
error. Here's SA header message:
* 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no
rDNS
Received: from unknown (HELO cronus.intersessions.com) (74.220.16.65)
your
On Sat, November 22, 2008 02:23, mouss wrote:
Jeff Koch a écrit :
As far as I can tell 'cronus.intersessions.com' has reverse setup and it
matches 74.220.16.65.
there's no thing like cronus.intersessions.com has reverse setup.
really. reverse is for an IP.
What am I missing?
a real MTA?
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi All
Hopefully another pair of eyes can help find the reason for this rDNS
error. Here's SA header message:
* 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with
no rDNS
Received: from unknown (HELO cronus.intersessions.com) (74.220.16.65)
As far as I
29 matches
Mail list logo
