On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote:
It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-)
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
Level 1
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:44:53 -0400, Jared Hall jh...@tbi.net wrote:
Nigel,
It takes two to tango.
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
First of all - anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP
servers as long as he does it conforming to relevant RFC's.
Anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP servers, period.
Been there, done that, got blacklisted for one mail. That's just
corpus.defero wrote:
Uceprotect has some strange listing policies that have been questioned
numerous times. But the crux of it is this, the people who use
UCEProtect are well aware of it - and it's not widely used. Personally
it's one of those lists I don't trust to block at an SMTP level,
On 22.04.10 13:53, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
doing this now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
reasons.
Of
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.04.10 13:53, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is
working hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:02 +0200, Mariusz Kruk
mariusz.k...@epsilon.eu.org wrote:
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
doing
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
such proof??
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
But I wouldn't count on that, and I think that if you have spammed,
they'd have proof against you...
Well... There is no way to contact them if you're listed. Even if it's not
level1. Not to mention that they never provide any proof
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
such proof??
Honestly - I have no idea since I had not been
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Kaleb Hosie kho...@spectraaluminum.com wrote:
Another (more automated way) is to use the following command:
spamassassin -r the_spam_message_file
Thanks for that info! I think the 'automated' suggestion sounds very
nice! When I submit it using 'SA' command,
I reported this issue about a month ago and didn't receive a response.
So I set about fixing it myself.
First, I edited the sa-update script to not delete the rules that it
downloaded and was running lint on... I looked at those rules to see if
I could spot the problem, but I couldn't... looked
Hi,
I have a problem with legimate mail getting flagged as spam. I have a system
that send software licence certificates over email, and many customers never
receive it. When I send it to my own email it gets marked as spam by
SpamAssin. I've been trying to figure out why. The sending system is
On 4/23/10 7:53 AM, PSuo petri.suomi...@pssoft.fi wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with legimate mail getting flagged as spam.
The headers mark as following:
X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash7.pair.com
X-Spam-Check-By: mailwash7.pair.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.7 required=4.0
PSuo wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with legimate mail getting flagged as spam. I have a
system that send software licence certificates over email, and many
customers never receive it. When I send it to my own email it gets
marked as spam by SpamAssin. I've been trying to figure out why.
Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 4/23/10 7:53 AM, PSuo petri.suomi...@pssoft.fi wrote:
The headers mark as following:
X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash7.pair.com
X-Spam-Check-By: mailwash7.pair.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.7 required=4.0
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, PSuo wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.7 required=4.0
tests=BAD_ENC_HEADER,HELO_LH_HOME,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,TRACKER_ID
BAD_ENC_HEADER - verify that you are properly encoding your message
headers.
HELO_LH_HOME - what helo string does your MTA use when sending
messages?
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Kaleb Hosie
kho...@spectraaluminum.com wrote:
Another (more automated way) is to use the following command:
spamassassin -r the_spam_message_file
Thanks for that info! I think the 'automated' suggestion sounds very
nice! When I submit it using 'SA'
Tux Techie wrote:
I've inserted score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0 without the quotes to the
end of your local.cf http://local.cf file to disable the rule for
2010 bug.
You need to double-check this entry and then restart spamd since the
rule is still hitting on all of the examples you gave. If
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Kalpin Erlangga Silaen
kal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si
wrote:
Kalpin Erlangga Silaen wrote:
I always get this error (once a day)
Apr 22 14:07:35 stargate amavis[7147]: (!)Net::Server:
Hello Nigel,
Am 2010-04-22 13:53:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and
Michelle Konzack wrote:
My legitim server is also blocked and I can not reach more then
20 customers and manufacturers du to this problem.
Some of them have already stoped using UCEPROTECT and I assume, you
know WHO owns ths enterprise...
I am spamed (more then 200.000 per month)
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:16 +0530, Tux Techie wrote:
I've inserted score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0 without the quotes to the
end of your local.cf file to disable the rule for 2010 bug.
According to the timestamps the samples are older than your mail.
Assuming you restarted spamd, these hits should
Hello Per,
Am 2010-04-23 19:48:14, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
It sounds like all you need to do is report them to the German
authorities. You know who they are, and you know that they are spamming
you, and you care about that - what else do you need? If you can't be
bothered with the
On fre 23 apr 2010 14:34:55 CEST, Lee Dilkie wrote
Why am I getting this error?
check spamassassin --lint before sa-update, if error fix it first :)
if that does not help then its a rule bug on remote
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 4/22/10, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have a server with multiple virtual domain,
I want to disable spam checking on some of them.
Is this possible?
You can't disable a domain *in* SA, but you can whitelist a domain in
local.cf like so:
# Disable SpamAssassin for this user/domain
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 08:33 -0400, Carlos Mennens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Kaleb Hosie kho...@spectraaluminum.com
wrote:
Another (more automated way) is to use the following command:
spamassassin -r the_spam_message_file
Thanks for that info! I think the 'automated'
28 matches
Mail list logo
