Mariusz Kruk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam.
A
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3s=3
I too _would_ like to know how the
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, you have (for example on spamcop):
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
I could find your IP (82.113.106.21) on these lists :
... ... ...
IP of your server (62.231.42.10) I found on these lists :
blocked.secnap.net127.0.0.2
countries.nerd.dk 127.0.0.1
ips.backscatterer.org 127.0.0.2
Being
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
But yes, some other RBL's have also unclear rules - I admit.
Yet, the delisting is kinda different isn't it?
Yes, but that has not been a problem for me so far. As far as I can
tell, the automatic process also works very well.
- which is why I don't block with
Alex wrote:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
On 26.11.09 17:12, Allen Chen wrote:
I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year.
It's still running and filtering spam without any problems.
But I think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4.
So I am asking which free RBLs you guys are still using.
first upgrade to 3.2.5.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Alex wrote:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
Don't use UCEPROTECT for
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:27 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 26.11.09 17:12, Allen Chen wrote:
I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year.
It's still running and filtering spam without any problems.
But I think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4.
So I am
Alex wrote:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for
On 26.11.09 17:12, Allen Chen wrote:
I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year.
It's still running and filtering spam without any problems.
But I think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4.
So I am asking which free RBLs you guys are still using.
On Fri,
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:03 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Why do you tell me? Tell the OP, I just have used the same
terminology.
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*. I pointed out that
RBL is trademark just to
On Thursday, November 26, 2009, 4:12:57 PM, Allen Chen wrote:
AC I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year. It's
AC still running and filtering spam without any problems. But I
AC think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4. So I am asking
AC which free RBLs you guys are still
On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
priceless reply-to
--
xpoint
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:17 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On fre 27 nov 2009 16:47:54 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
Matus, why are you once more sending me off list replies?
Again, will you *please* keep your replies *ON LIST*.
priceless reply-to
Priceless indeed. Everybody else can
All,
a few months back, there was a discussion on this list about the
VBSpam comparative anti-spam tests[1], in which SpamAssassin performed
significantly worse than many commercial products. Now I run these
tests and I believe something was the matter with (the installation
of) SA that made it
Robert Braver wrote:
On Thursday, November 26, 2009, 4:12:57 PM, Allen Chen wrote:
AC I didn't touch my spamassassin server for almost one year. It's
AC still running and filtering spam without any problems. But I
AC think things are changed a lot. I'm using 3.2.4. So I am asking
AC which free
On fre 27 nov 2009 18:08:23 CET, Allen Chen wrote
DNSBLs. We are non-profit organization and don't have too much email traffic.
install bind, check spamhaus dnsbl in sendmail, add more internal spam
tests in sendmail, dont add to much dnsbl in sendmail, and i have
found spamcop is more for
On Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:08:23 AM, Allen Chen wrote:
AC Thanks for all the replies. yes, RBL, I mean DNSBL. Also I heard
AC that configuring DNSBL in sendmail is better than in
AC spammassassin. because this can release some loads on
AC spamassassin. Am I right?
For some DNSBLs, yes.
Martijn,
I may be missing something here but I went to your website and
you use the terms malware and spam interchangeably.
Now, it may be true that these days in the commercial realm
that the antivirus vendors are all jumping into the anti-spam market
to enhance revenue, but in reality,
Martijn Grooten wrote:
- I'm happy to add any extensions as long as these are also free and
open source -- note that our 'target audience' includes big ISPs and
unfortunately for them things as Spamhaus's RBL aren't free;
I'm not in any way trying to jump on what you're trying to do as I
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
undisclosed recipients is used for Bcc: mail
I used it
Hi,
- I'm happy to add any extensions as long as these are also free and
open source -- note that our 'target audience' includes big ISPs and
unfortunately for them things as Spamhaus's RBL aren't free;
Do the commercial vendors get to use publically-available DNSBLs like
zen? If so, and
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
header __L_UNDISCLOSED1 To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
Just how do I go about figuring out what the To:raw value is (for example)?
header __TO_RAW To:raw =~ /.+/
If you're analyzing something that may have multiple
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
header __L_UNDISCLOSED1 To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
Just how do I go about figuring out what the To:raw value is (for
example)?
header __TO_RAW To:raw =~ /.+/
If you're analyzing something that may
26 matches
Mail list logo
