On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, smfabac wrote:
$ sa-learn --showdots --ham --mbox notspam
Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (0 message(s) examined)
Still no luck.
Are we sure the notspam file is clean? Try trimming it down to just one or
two messages, and see how it goes
- C
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/
You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for
curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page.
You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
What page were you looking at? All I see at that URL is a fairly
straightforward description of how to implement his MTX system.
The page 'redirects' to this one: http://www.chaosreigns.com/fail
It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
Erm.. The string microsoft doesn't even exist on that page.
No Microsoft browser supports this 9 year old standard.
Obviously you are't using IE and so you weren't subjected to the
arrogant refusal of his server to deliver the requested page.
(shrug)
- C
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site
using Internet Explorer,
Good. Get a real browser.
Like I said, he (and you) can rant all you want about the evils of
Microsoft, and frankly I wouldn't be inclined to argue with you. (grin)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I would blame whoever set up the website. The page in question does not
even attempt to use the features that the fail page refers to.
(nod) I guess that really says it all
Thanks for mentioning this. Now my 'vague feeling' is confirmed.
- C
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Electronics generating sparks when overloaded? Yes.
Generating smoke? Yes.
Flames? Yes.
A dynamic explosion? No.
(Never did figure out why all the electronics consoles in movies seem to
contain explosives...)
Self-destruct mechanism, obviously! :)
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:08 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
You get an email delivered from 64.71.152.40 (last untrusted
relay). You look up the DNS A record for that IP, and get
mail.chaosreigns.com.
That's a PTR lookup, but let's press on
Then you look up the DNS PTR record of
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
My home dynamic cablemodem address passes full-circle DNS. But not this.
So this is far more useful for checking if an IP is a legitimate sending
mail server.
So rather than mimicing SPF, you want to mimic the effect of various
IP-based
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
When I implement this, senders will get an error asking them to ask
their administrator to create the necessary record.
Those administrators will say that they do not have control over DNS,
because that's done at a higher organizational level,
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
So rather than mimicing SPF, you want to mimic the effect of various
IP-based blacklists to which an ISP can report all of its 'unauthorized'
IP's (typicalyl dynamic IP blocks)?
Basically, except of course that the default, when not
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Charles: Thanks, I clearly need to lay out implementation sequence.
Sorry to be wasting your time, but I am smart enough to have grasped it
from your previous e-mails. You just WANT your solution to be magically
adopted by everyone and you
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Jonas wrote:
But for us as well as bowie, the sought rules are hitting significantly
less mails than they used to.
Makes me wonder if the spammers have put some work into identifying the
spamtraps used to feed the sought rules generator? Have the sought
maintainers
* Strictly for fun. Cuz I'm a geek and can't resist..
The code you post could not produce the output shown.
There is no 'reject' in the line 'Relay access denied'. (big wide grin)
No argument about the intended *point* of the output. :)
- C
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, LuKreme wrote:
$
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Take another look. The original line must contain 'reject', but the
output is not the entire line.
Awk. (as an exclamation) :)
- C
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
little uncomfortable making the form submit any more complicated than
necessary, since the people who use it are generally already stressed, and
I'd prefer to not make them decipher swirly letters.
I find that most form-fillers are robots and
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, James Butler wrote:
. Gibberish in the form is just a probe.
My experience has been that the gibberish gets around simplistic tests for
'empty' fields. That's why I advocate the use of a field that *should* be
empty. :)
- C
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
You guys are doing something wrong.
Firstly, let's all acknowledge that the OP cross-posted to/from the SARE
mailing list, and continues to do so. Yes, there is no one on the main SA
list that is responsible for the rule, but that being said,
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Alex wrote:
The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
couldn't read it.
Stupid pet trick: Highlight the text with your mouse, and you will get
ugly, but readable white-on-blue. :)
- C
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
So what should a Taiwan user (Taiwan~=Hinet)
user do. Buy a SMTP account with a US Company?
I told you what you can do.
Apart from that, again:
SARE is not part of SA.
SARE is deprecated.
So, why bother?
Why bother posting just to tell him that his
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Warren Togami wrote:
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/33674.html
If you use spamassassin on Fedora or RHEL5, please see my blog post for RPM
packages and distro-specific notes.
Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm?
Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:10:51 -0500 (EST):
Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm?
Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update channels in due time?
Just do yourself. Follow the instructions on the download page, it's
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?, or did it, but apache.org did not
see the problem in maillist ?
Because we have a caching server accepting the mail, and then when it
*finally* decides the client is not going to retrieve the mail, it
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, LuKreme wrote:
: You shouldn't be sending ANY mailinglists through SpamAssassin.
Say what? And how exactly do you propose to do that for hundreds of users,
any of whom could be subscribed to many different lists? Far too much for
any manual system (presuming you could even
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, LuKreme wrote:
: You shouldn't be sending ANY mailinglists through SpamAssassin.
On 22.01.10 09:49, Charles Gregory wrote:
Say what? And how exactly do you propose to do that for hundreds of users,
any of whom could
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
: Then I don't know the Greek alphabet. The relevant subroutine from
: SpamAssassin::Plugin::HeaderEval is below:
:$subject =~ s/[^a-zA-Z]//g; # only look at letters
I think the 'issue' is that spamassassin *should* have some 'higher level'
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
: spamassassin 21 -D --lint | less
: is this line not a FAQ by now ?
I just tried this, for curiosity's sake, and was surprised to discover
that a couple of my meta rules had simple typos that showed up like this
in the 'debug' output (3.2.5):
[28424]
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Mike Wallace wrote:
: I do this but it only works for rejecting a forged envelope. It doesn't
: work if it's only a forged From header which the example shows.
:
: Does anyone know of a way to handle this type of scenario, where the
: envelope From is valid and the From
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, tonjg wrote:
: thanks for your response Ned.
: your last line describes exactly what I want to do - reject mail, do it at
: the smtp stage in sendmail - but I don't know how to achieve this.
Welcome!
Permit me to state what may be considered 'obvious' to many, but which may
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Callum Millard wrote:
: The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending
: e-mails to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail
: address from our domain.
Key question: Can your users send mail 'From' their internal addresses via
ANY
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
: I just copied and pasted that out of pastebin into a little project I've
: been working on. Here's the result:
: http://spamalyser.com/v/6xnb26gp/mime
Question: What does spamalyzer do with an HTML message part?
It is of concern (naturally) that
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, LuKreme wrote:
: I never subscribed to the list in question. I am, in fact, not
: subscribed to any googlelists on this account.
I'm not an expert on googlegroups headers, but these 'look right'.
So I'm inclined to agree that this is just an abused group and not
spam that
I don't know that it applies to specifically spamassassin, but I used to
run into considerable nuisance with seg faults on Solaris when the
parameters of scripts were a specific number of bytes - I think around
multiples of 32. So you might achieve joy by adjusting the length of a
filename
Please reply to list. This reply is to list...
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Richard B. Emerson wrote:
: Actually, the example note has To: bab...@yahoogroups.com not To:
: ch...@pinefields.com...
The To header is irrelevant. Mail to this list is addressed To: the
list. But the *envelope* (which is
Ooops. Sorry. A poster replied offlist, and when I attempted to put
it back on-list, I lamely inserted the SA users list address instead of
the procmail list address. (smack forehead)
Disregard.
-C
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
: Please reply to list. This reply is to list
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Michael Scheidell wrote:
: My suggestion: Setup a link/page that provides for rapid reporting by
: pasting an offending e-mail without a bunch of form-filling. Just use a
: captcha to avoid poisoning :)
: - C
: or an industry standard, RFC REQUIRED abuse@ address.
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Gene Heskett wrote:
: The bottom line is that they are still spammers. Filter 'em.
About that.
A principle needs to be discussed here: Prohibition does not work.
The way to gain cooperation from 'big business' that *does* want to 'spam'
is to find ways to keep them
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Greg Troxel wrote:
: Thanks. A link like report spam in the top bar, alongside marketers
: and senders would help. That should link to a page that gives an email
: address where one can forward the full offending message, and a way to
: lookup IP addresses to see if they are
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, lstep wrote:
: Is there something implemented in Spamassassin to test and prevent mails
: that come from 'outside' that have the header 'From' set to an internal
: user?
And here are YOUR headers on your email, which you would have received on
your server from an 'outside
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
: just wanted to inform you that is the only official quote marker.
Deep sigh. Do you know why I changed it?
Because I was getting several M$ Outhouse correspondents complaining that
my messages (using the 'standard' '') were 'difficult to read'.
I
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, J.D. Falk wrote:
: On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
: Once again I went to returnpath and senderscorecertified's web pages,
: and found no link to an email address to report being spammed by one of
: their customers.
: Is the font size for Contact Us and
date), figuring I would
update the code long before I got here. Now I'm looking at my system and
wondering, DID I update all those programs? LOL
- C
Charles Gregory wrote:
Holy !!!
I am SO glad that I read my e-mail first thing this morning!
THANKS for spotting
You know, I really can't complain about the 'responsiveness' in this
situation. Under 24 hours. That's d**n good for anyone, but especially for
volunteers on a holiday! I'm seriously impressed! Big thanks to the team!
- Charles
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I've posted the
Holy !!!
I am SO glad that I read my e-mail first thing this morning!
THANKS for spotting this!
- Charles
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
I just received some HAM with a surprisingly high score. The following
rule triggered:
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen wrote:
I just received some HAM with a surprisingly high score. The
following rule triggered:
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
Please open a bug for
Not the first time I've seen 'threat mail' 419 though the other one
was a much slicker job, and actually had my user a bit worried
Just the same, thanks for posting this, I'll add a few rules to catch it.
Don't want my more-senior clients worried by this crud
- C
On Tue, 22
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, J.D. Falk wrote:
That's IT! PORNOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION!
Sorry. Already been tried.
But no matter what we called it, the users still didn't appreciate their
computers or network going down on them. :)
- C
PS. Let's not get started on how hard disks are smaller than
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provide us with your mail. You can scan your own
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
The downside is that this is not confirmed ham and confirmed spam.
(nod) Exactly. And that is what is needed to do a masscheck...
I wonder how much companies would pay for a part time SpamAssassin
honcho who can be trusted (bonded?) and can write SARE-ish
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the
nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Res wrote:
the only person here at present trolling is you, so for F's sake STFU
and stop generating massive noise ratio
(nod) Done.
- C
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?
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, 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, 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
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, 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 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 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
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 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 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.
Thank you, Warren. That (finally) gives some real perspective to this
mess, and gets some of the 'real' questions answered.
- C
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
I made a discovery today that surprised even myself. Using the rescore
masscheck and weekly masscheck logs while working
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/16/2009 6:16 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
So far only 1 person on this list has claimed to have been hit by Spam
that has been let through by the Habeas rules in SA.
I'm the only one? Really? That doesn’t jibe with my memory, but I'm not
scanning
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, hc...@mail.ewind.com wrote:
I decided it was time to upgrade when a computer store clerk was trying
to tell me that there was no such thing as an 8 floppy disk...
I wonder if IBM finally phased them out?
I still have a couple as souvenirs :)
- C
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Three points:
1) It is known this list is read by spammers to learn what we are
doing. I've verified this with challenge/response tactics including
taunting more than once.
Sh! They'll hear you! :)
2) On several occasions now Richard has tried to torpedo
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Chris Santerre wrote:
A few months back there was a wave of spam coming from abused Polish .pl
TLD.
It seems iContact uses random generated directories in thier tracking URLs
that contain a period. Yup... you guessed it... incontact/a.pl/
means it hits the rule.
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
I found the text only list and I originally had it set to just
spamassassin.org rather that spamassassin.apache.org so this should help
those on the list reading their email with a KSR33 teletype on a 110
baud acoustic modem use less paper when reading
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/asr33.shtml
There was actually a time when I had one of those in my house.
For your amusement:
I still have my old Commodore 64 and 1541 drive sitting in the basement.
One year my daughter's
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
I generally use PINE
{researches a bit} Hmmm. It only appears to happen when non-ASCII
characters are in the message I'm replying to.
OT: Seeing how you seem to have some passing acquaintance with ASCII
character set issues, I thought I would ask
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, J.D. Falk wrote:
Which finally brings us back to the core questions which seem to go
unanswered:
They've all been answered many times, in other threads.
Perhaps I missed the messages, but it seems to me that the deep issues are
*debated* a little, but never really
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems running ordinary sa-update on 3.2.5.
My rules (in /var/lib/spamassassin) still include the
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Those were the days. A few poke and peek commands, 15 minutes
waiting for the cassette tape to load the pirated game...
Biggest thrill for me was reverse-egineering the 'fast loader' code in one
of the games so that I could create my own TSR that
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Clarification: I, for one, was only proposing that the whitelisting
plugins and rules that query external databases are removed from the
standard ruleset and sa_update and placed in a separate library of
optional rules.
The 'issue' (as I see it) is
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Jeff Koch wrote:
I have to say that it is extremely annoying that this mailing list does
not put a tag identifying itself in the subject line. Every other
mailing list of a similar technical nature that I participate in has a
tag. A tag of two characters would allow users
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Matt Garretson wrote:
Heartily agreed. Site-wide bayes here (single database for 2000+ users)
catches 40% of the spam here.
But what is the FP rate? Is it safe for an ISP with a widely varied user
base to use site-wide Bayes?
- Charles
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Get a modern email client. Are you using a KSR33 teletype on a 110 baud
modem?
To be fair, I must admit that there comes a point in the technology curve
when we must let go of the oldest/plainest tech in favor of new ways of
doing things. And even my
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Toni Mueller wrote:
As you may have noticed, I've got my procmail set to insert one (as seen
above). But this has the unfortunate side-effect of messing with
threading in some threaded mail clients and archives :(
I don't know the abilities of Alpine, but if you use
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Dec-2009, at 09:42, Charles Gregory wrote:
The 'issue' (as I see it) is that a great many servers install a
'standard' SA 'package' So it is important to
to make the best possible assessment of all rules...
The trouble with that is exactly
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
As you may have noticed, I've got my procmail set to insert one (as
seen above). But this has the unfortunate side-effect of messing with
threading in some threaded mail clients and archives :(
I just see Subject: Re: Re: Spam from…
Changing the subject
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Why would anyone pay USD20 to register with emailreg.org instead of
publishing an SPF record for free?
To keep the pointy-haired managers happy.
Meow! :)
- C
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there wouldn't
be an issue.
The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design and
defaults, are carried on by numerous individuals in a quite civilized
manner. But when
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Bob O'Brien wrote:
I can mostly just offer opinion, and that would be that whitelisting is
not (yet) in wide enough use to have become a sufficiently attractive
target.
Which brings us back to the 'rational version' of the discussion about SA
weighing whitelists
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Save your bullets.
Habeas is history... it's been swallowed and the new mothership will be in
SA 3.3.0
Cryptic, but raising hopes. Could you please explain this remark?
- C
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
NOW you're getting somewhere. I saw that info on their site. The IP
returned has the last octet set according to the tier. So maybe the issue
here, which we should push into the SA developers hands is that the
current Habeas rules only look for a binary
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
Nonsense. I had to score this list -2000 just to keep it from
scoring so darn high that it was hitting the 'automatic'
rejection at the SMTP gate before any of my whitelists could
function.
Charles,
you would be better off properly whitelisting the SA mailing
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Yes, this is the grand new frontier of e-mail marketing. Technically, you
*are* opting-in. It meets satisfactory criteria because you are using some
other form of identification to substantiate that you are *really* you
(you are buying stuff). But
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Terry Carmen wrote:
Some of my users have people they normally to corrospond with, but who also
send large numbers of massivly CC'd jokes.
Does anybody have an example of a rule that would score messages with large
numbers of CCs higher, without hosing filtering for the
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 08/12/2009 16:35, Charles Gregory wrote:
. My SMTP gateway (Mail Avenger) works best if mail is scanned for
*all* recipients, and so it is not possible to use individual per-user
Bayes.
In cases were there is only a single recipient, I run
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
What are you asking? Obviously 'unsolicited' is NOT 'wanted', so therefore
by using the word 'wanted' I am by definition meaning *solicited*. That
means somone ASKED for the mail. REQUESTED it via an
opt-in mechanism, with confirmation.
I will
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Won't customers dealing with such a company will have whitelisted them
long ago?
For every 'mark' that is out there, stupidly entering their e-mail and
then getting a bunch of ads for which they didn't realize they had given
permission, there are people
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
Nope. I run an ISP and basically my SPF amounts to 'neutral' because my
users can send mail from any
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
Nyet, nyet, nyet... we would *not* all live with the occassional opt-in
request from Return Path.
frankly, nothing against them, yet if an organization really needs Return
Path to get their email through to mailboxes without rejection, then doesn't
the
101 - 200 of 385 matches
Mail list logo
