Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm thinking about starting a service to filter spam on outgoing
email. I was wondering if anyone has any experience doing this
yes
and has some advice on how to do it.
yes. Don't do it.
These customers will be businesses, not freemail customers
J.D. Falk wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Not true. There are servers that say send out bank statements and
100% of
what it sends is bank statements.
Until the day those servers get hacked, or they take on a new client
who sends a different type of mail, etc.
That's why any serious 3rd party whi
McDonald, Dan wrote:
> Incidentally, if anyone knows how to convince the latest Outlook
> service pack to not mung the body and strip headers when doing the
> "create new message and drag the message into it" trick, I'd love to
> be able to tell the helpdesk so that they can collect proper message
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Not true. There are servers that say send out bank statements and 100% of
what it sends is bank statements.
Until the day those servers get hacked, or they take on a new client
who sends a different type of mail, etc.
That's why any serious 3rd party whitelist service will
Email: 911 Autolearn: 603 AvgScore: 13.10 AvgScanTime: 12.16 sec
Spam: 462 Autolearn: 414 AvgScore: 33.17 AvgScanTime: 10.80 sec
Ham:449 Autolearn: 189 AvgScore: -7.55 AvgScanTime: 13.55 sec
Time Spent Running SA: 3.08 hours
Time Spent Processing Spam
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 12:24 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> >
> > Incidentally, if anyone knows how to convince the latest Outlook service
> > pack to not mung the body and strip headers when doing the "create new
> > message and drag the message into it" trick, I'd love
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, McDonald, Dan wrote:
We are getting a number of word docs with scams in them.
Likewise, as well as PDFs.
The word doc has a pretty standard 419 body in it, I recall some
mutterings on this list about using wvHtml to regularize word docs.
There were mutterings about a g
McDonald, Dan wrote:
Incidentally, if anyone knows how to convince the latest Outlook service
pack to not mung the body and strip headers when doing the "create new
message and drag the message into it" trick, I'd love to be able to tell
the helpdesk so that they can collect proper message bodi
Marc Perkel wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of:
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggeste
McDonald, Dan wrote:
Incidentally, if anyone knows how to convince the latest Outlook service
pack to not mung the body and strip headers when doing the "create new
message and drag the message into it" trick, I'd love to be able to tell
the helpdesk so that they can collect proper message bodie
We are getting a number of word docs with scams in them.
e.g.:
http://pastebin.com/m7e7efaac
Note that this message has been MUNGed by Outlook, so the html parts
have truly been Mashed Until No Good. As far as I can tell, the
following rules didn't hit in the original, pre-MUNGed message:
1.6 MIS
RW wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:40:01 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I know that it seems like the idea of building up "meta" rules with
a lot of small rules will give you a more accurate hit rate, but
this is one of those non-intuitive things that can be shown by
statistical mathmatics, that
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Warren Togami wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
>>> For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
>>> planet. I'm surprised no one is
>>> testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of bla
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm thinking about starting a service to filter spam on outgoing email.
I was wondering if anyone has any experience doing this
yes
and has some
advice on how to do it.
yes. Don't do it.
These customers will be businesses, not freemail
customers, and one of the only r
Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
planet. I'm surprised no one is
testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of black lists. Doing white
lists is actually easier than doing
black lists because
On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
planet. I'm surprised no one is
testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of black lists. Doing white
lists is actually easier than doing
black lists because there are thousands of
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of:
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score)
17 matches
Mail list logo
