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.
Henrik K wrote:
Ok, while DNS would allow that, it would be a real waste of a
protocol. Why would you want to make the sending party wait for a
response that only adds delays and has no purpose? Simply send a UDP
packet and be done with it. No TCP or DNS overhead. One or two lines
of perl.
Rajkumar S wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:46 +0530:
Is the file format of bayes db available some where?
dbm, gdbm ...
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Hi,
because of no external DNS resolution provided by my /provider/, i can
not use network test in SA and am stuck with local test. :(
I thought about work around a lot of time, but most network checks rely
on DNS. I can only use HTTP(S) via proxy servers and SMTP via relay
servers. So no
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, Gene Heskett wrote:
I got to work for several months as a bench tech for an outfit building
the first pair of the then smallest tv cameras in the world.
Later I found out that one of those civies was Jacques Cousteau,
3 hours later had a contract to put those two
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:46 +0530
Rajkumar S rajkum...@asianetindia.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Matt Kettler
mkettler...@verizon.net wrote:
As you mentioned, you'd need a custom script (not wildly
complicated for a good perl scripter, but beyond the bounds of
someone
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
Marc Patermann wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:21:21 +0100:
When I try to test with an entry from a today's list, i get no result:
(http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php)
That's a flaw in that service. I get 127.0.0.2.
Isn't the OFD able to provide spam-free mail?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl,
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?
Marc Patermann wrote:
The NixSpam project maintains downloadable lists for ixHash and
NixSpam blacklist.
http://www.ix.de/nixspam/nixspam.blackmatches
http://www.heise.de/ix/nixspam/nixspam.cachematches
The easiest way may be to generate local DNS zones for this, isn't it?
Does anyone
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating systems was
going to be CP/M 86.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the ZX80/1 yet.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that seem fair?
50_scores.cf:score
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
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On fre 18 dec 2009 15:57:18 CET, Per Jessen wrote
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the ZX80/1 yet.
or even spectrum hacked to run cpm :)
I've also got a Newbrain stashed away somewhere, manuals, circuit
diagrams an' all.
add it to ebay if you want to sell it,
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, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that
Marc Perkel wrote:
spam 1.2.3.4 example.com
ham 5.6.7.8 example2.com
Sending these one line TCP messages if fairly easy.
Why use TCP for this? Establishing a connection channel for simple short
mesages where a return code is not required introduces pointless overhead.
It'd be much
Jason Haar wrote:
Then the third filed is NONE. That's how I do it. But the idea is that
any kind of daya can be collectively gathered and distributed.
Instead of a TCP channel (which means software), what about using DNS?
If the SA clients did RBL lookups that contained the details as
Per Jessen wrote:
DNS lookups are usually tried done with UDP first,
Sure, DNS usually uses UDP, but the DNS resolver also waits for an
answer, wich is simply a waste of time when the sender doesn't need the
answer.
Add to this that resolving one address may result in multiple queries
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 Friday 18 December 2009, jdow wrote:
From: Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 21:21
[...]
Now, if you want to get me rolling about an incompetent computer
company just mention GRiD and their Compass not really a laptop computer.
Even the bugs were themselves
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/
specifically this link
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
since i have been watching these devels
thanks
- rh
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 Friday 18 December 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Gene Heskett wrote:
I got to work for several months as a bench tech for an outfit building
the first pair of the then smallest tv cameras in the world.
Later I found out that one of those civies was Jacques Cousteau,
3
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 Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating systems was
going to be CP/M 86.
I'm
R-Elists wrote:
as far as museum pieces go, i submit that my first was an Apple 2E if i
remember correctly..
BRUN BEERRUN
was an interesting game, or something to that effect... ;-)
...and (snore) i also programmed a helicopter to fly across the top and drop
a bomb on a space invader
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
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
8085/8088 CPU board. At that time, the future in operating systems
was going to
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 07:09:03 PM CET, Per Jessen wrote
Completely agree, but the ZX80/1 made computers very, very affordable. I
was 15 when I managed to convince my parents that I desperately needed
one of those. Back in 1981,
zx80 was 1980 imho, and had just 1k ram, and 8k rom, fully
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 Dec 18, 2009, at 7:56, Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
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
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 07:09:03 PM CET, Per Jessen wrote
Completely agree, but the ZX80/1 made computers very, very
affordable. I was 15 when I managed to convince my parents that I
desperately needed
one of those. Back in 1981,
zx80 was 1980 imho, and had just 1k ram,
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
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
Yeah, those links are valid. I just haven't committed anything in a while.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
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
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:56
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll
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: Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:25
On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus system running a dual
8085/8088 CPU board.
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 12/19/2009 04:51 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
(And if more security is needed the easiest way would be to simple
limit access to approved IP addresses.)
Except that a token would enable one owner with multiple SA instances
on separate networks to come across as one entity - that could be
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Jason Haar wrote:
On 12/19/2009 04:51 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
(And if more security is needed the easiest way would be to simple
limit access to approved IP addresses.)
Except that a token would enable one owner with multiple SA instances
on separate networks to come
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
Well, at this point, I respectfully bow, and take a step back, so as not
to sound too demanding of our great volunteers (smile), but I believe
in another of my posts I
On Friday 18 December 2009, jdow wrote:
From: Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:25
On Friday 18 December 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
re: CP/M
No S-100 bus systems mentioned yet?
My first home computer was a Godbout S-100 bus
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, Charles Gregory wrote:
I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it
has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very
infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good
practice, particularly when an
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, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your
keyboard.
There is a one inch gap between
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
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e.,
if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks,
it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently.
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
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:49
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 15:31, R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net wrote:
Axb
PS: If JM posts a link to his Amazon wishlist, maybe we can
all help him decorate the new place :-)
+1
hey, if you all insist ;)
http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/1M0UDEXT6A3I7
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
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 5:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be
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
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
