On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Dennis B. Hopp dh...@coreps.com wrote:
I have been seeing a few spam mails slip past that talk about being able to
get bogus dollar amounts. What I mean by that is it will give a large value
in the e-mail but where there should be a comma it puts a period.
I
On 25/02/2010 12:01, ram wrote:
I have been seeing a few spam mails slip past that talk about being
able to get bogus dollar amounts. What I mean by that is it will
give a large value in the e-mail but where there should be a comma
it puts a period.
I put an example of one
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 17:31 +0530, ram wrote:
http://pastebin.com/SXuGELUS
Are there any rules that can detect this?
The only rules this hit on mine are:
1.900 DCC_CHECK
1.449 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
1.000 RCVD_IN_BRBL
-0.001 SPF_PASS
-0.010 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
-1.900 BAYES_00
Ram wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:31:04 +0530:
how can i stop those kind of emails
11.Received: from unknown (HELO NANQRZBVJZ) (121.100.119.197)
If you allow such a thing to deliver to you you actively ask for spam.
I don't waste SA cycles on such stuff.
Apart from that it seems your SA is
Dennis B. Hopp wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:58 -0600:
Obviously I have something going on with my bayes, but that's a separate issue
Indeed. But it's an important issue. If it is that biased for other spam as well
youa re better off to not use it in this state.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:55:50 +0530
ram r...@netcore.co.in wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:33 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I agree. I've been in the spam filtering business for many years
and have yetto find any use for SPF at all. It's disturbing this
useless technology is getting the false
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, ram wrote:
http://pastebin.com/6c9sEEn9
i still see lot of junk mail coming with different charecters, i do not
even read them clearly
how can i stop those kind of emails
Reject languages you can't read at SMTP time?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
i still see lot of junk mail coming with different charecters, i do not
even read them clearly
how can i stop those kind of emails
Reject languages you can't read at SMTP time?
I've been noticing more 'foreign language' spams that do not use
a
Quoting Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com:
Dennis B. Hopp wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:58 -0600:
Obviously I have something going on with my bayes, but that's a
separate issue
Indeed. But it's an important issue. If it is that biased for other
spam as well
youa re better off to
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because as many people have said here
- spammers are the ones
schmo_j wrote:
Greetings!
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 on Gentoo Linux, and I'm looking to
block messages from @mydomain.com that originate from outside my
network.
That is best/most easily done at MTA level - see the recent thread Off
Topic - SPF - What a Disaster.
/Per Jessen,
On 25-Feb-2010, at 05:36, Mike Cardwell wrote:
I repasted that at http://spamalyser.com/v/gcrvcnbm/mime in order to get the
benefit of mime parsing and decoding.
running it through spamassassin -Lt I get a score of 16.6 (13.2)
Content analysis details: (16.6 points, 5.0 required)
pts
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:m...@perkel.com] Sent: Thursday, February
25, 2010 12:30 PM To: ram Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject:
Re: Off Topic - SPF - What a Disaster
ram wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:33 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote:
Greetings!
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 on Gentoo Linux, and I'm looking to block
messages from @mydomain.com that originate from outside my network. I
already have a whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.com rule in
place, can I simply add a blacklist_from *...@mydomain.com rule
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
What is the HK_MUCHMONEY rule that you have? Is that part of the base
SA installation?
It's a sandbox rule that got promoted. I'm working on a set of money rules
that will supercede it.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Original Message
From: schmo_j [mailto:schm...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:40 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Block Spammers Spoofing My Domain
Greetings!
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 on Gentoo Linux, and I'm looking to block
messages from
Marc Perkel wrote:
I can see some theoretical benefits that if you have a list of banks
with SPF and you receive an email from an address that the bank lists
then you can safely pass it. But I find that an easier way to do that
is to use FCrDNS to do the same thing.
Not a theoretical
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, schmo_j schm...@yahoo.com wrote:
Greetings!
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 on Gentoo Linux, and I'm looking to block
messages from @mydomain.com that originate from outside my network. I
already have a whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.com rule
At 02:31 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because as many people have
On 25-Feb-2010, at 10:29, Marc Perkel wrote:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you for
admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is also not a
white listing solution because as many people have said here - spammers are
the ones who are
Le 25/02/2010 17:06, Charles Gregory a écrit :
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
i still see lot of junk mail coming with different charecters, i do not
even read them clearly
how can i stop those kind of emails
Reject languages you can't read at SMTP time?
I've been noticing more
Jeff Koch wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:08:46 -0500:
I disagree.
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam tool. Full
stop.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
How silly. That's like saying an iPhone is not a gaming device even though
plenty of people use it to play game apps. Perhaps you should re-read the
SPF FAQ's.
At 04:31 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:08:46 -0500:
I disagree.
I don't know to what you
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, co.at.pn is not valid for
util_rb_2tld, skipping: util_rb_2tld co.at.pn
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, co.uk.pn is not valid for
util_rb_2tld, skipping: util_rb_2tld co.uk.pn
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, com.au.pn is not valid
On 2/25/2010 11:41 PM, Daniel McDonald wrote:
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, co.at.pn is not valid for
util_rb_2tld, skipping: util_rb_2tld co.at.pn
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, co.uk.pn is not valid for
util_rb_2tld, skipping: util_rb_2tld co.uk.pn
config: SpamAssassin
Rick Cooper wrote:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it
is also not a white listing solution because as many people have said
here - spammers are the ones who are using SPF correctly.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because as many people have said here
Jeff Koch wrote:
At 02:31 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:29:48 -0800:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you
for admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is
also not a white listing solution because
Sometimes I wonder, at which point in a lengthy *off-topic* discussion I
should start so slap people on the wrist, and tell 'em to go play
somewhere else and find a list where it is bloody on-topic.
A short digression every now an then of course is OK. Why not. But a
lengthy, tiresome and
LuKreme wrote:
On 25-Feb-2010, at 10:29, Marc Perkel wrote:
The anti-SPF bandwagon is not ego driven but results driven. Than you for
admitting that SPF in not a spam filtering solution. However it is also not a
white listing solution because as many people have said here - spammers are
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:08:46 -0500:
I disagree.
I don't know to what you disagree, but SPF is not an anti-spam tool. Full
stop.
Kai
You say that here but in your last message you said:
If SPF was adapted 99% (and always strict with no
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 15:19 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
SPF will never be 99% adopted until it actually does something that is
significantly useful. Using it as a white list to bypass a grey list
isn't what I would call significantly useful. SPF fails the actually
works test.
But it DOES do
On 2/25/2010 6:26 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please, guys, let it go. If you *know* this ain't the right place, stop
it.
+1
/Jason
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2/25/2010 6:26 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please, guys, let it go. If you *know* this ain't the right place,
stop it.
+1
+1
Please take it to alt.advocacy.spf.headdesk.headdesk.headdesk
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm not hearing from people in this forum who are saying it works.
Even those who are SPF evangelists can't point to any significant
results in either blocking spam or passing ham.
Well it's no magic bullet, but nothing is. I use SPF to try and make my
domain less a target
On 2/25/2010 6:37 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
A lot of posts with useless rants on a personal grievance against SPF
Marc,
I suspect you're not seeing a bunch of supporters of SPF post on this
thread because most find it tiresome, bothersome, pointless, or all of
the above. I bit my lip until
Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2/25/2010 6:37 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
A lot of posts with useless rants on a personal grievance against SPF
Marc,
I suspect you're not seeing a bunch of supporters of SPF post on this
thread because most find it tiresome, bothersome, pointless, or all of
the
On 2/25/2010 8:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
The forward issue is definitely an annoyance. But SPF has a problem in
that as the supporters admit, it doesn't block spam, and it can't be
used as a white rule because spammers often use SPF correctly. I'm not
sure what you mean that forwarding has
Although I grasp the concept of Bayes in the SA system, I don't fully
understand how and which tokens it grabs from mails passed through SA.
Although many servers deal with 24-hour customers, mine is 98% business
only 8AM to 5PM. Does the SA Bayes system even look at time of day for
tokens?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Toni Mueller
support-spamassas...@oeko.net wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24.02.2010 at 22:18:04 -0500, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Toni Mueller
support-spamassas...@oeko.net wrote:
On Tue, 23.02.2010 at 14:08:30 -0500, alexus
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2/25/2010 6:37 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
A lot of posts with useless rants on a personal grievance against
SPF ...
Marc,
I suspect you're not seeing a bunch of supporters of SPF post on this
thread because most find it
Marc,
Which fails when you have someone that has multiple domains that may be
sending mail from the same organization. Mail to me from Citi may comes
from any one of at least 6 different domains, and the mailserver is not
necessarily in the same domain.
Whitelist all 6 domains.
* Jason Bertoch ja...@i6ix.com:
On 2/25/2010 6:26 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please, guys, let it go. If you *know* this ain't the right place, stop
it.
+1
+1
--
state of mind
Digitale Kommunikation
http://www.state-of-mind.de
Franziskanerstraße 15 Telefon +49 89 3090 4664
81669
43 matches
Mail list logo
