Childish actions of Harald Reindl

:18, client: >50.93.253.222, server: mail-gw.thelounge.net, contact: ><postmas...@thelounge.net> +4315953999 > > From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> > Subject: Auto-Forwarder -> Reject from now on > Date: August 4, 2016 at 4:40:22 PM CDT >

Re: detect if html attachment without plugin

There is no reason whatsoever to attack list users in this manner. None. If they’re annoying you then ignore them. > On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > Am 04.08.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:04

Re: detect if html attachment without plugin

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > may is suggest that you sue your drug dealer and leave us in peace until you > found a better one - and no - that is not an attack, i just try to find a > logical reason for what you are posting all the time >

Re: Paragraph Length Limit (new rule)

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:37 PM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Ryan Coleman wrote: > >> So your script dings my websites because I use .php as an extension without >> doing SEO? >> >> That seems really silly. Ma

Re: Paragraph Length Limit (new rule)

So your script dings my websites because I use .php as an extension without doing SEO? That seems really silly. Many websites use internal pages without SEO because of the royal PITB they can be to program all the little variables. For crying out loud most unsubscribe links are scripts with

Re: Paragraph Length Limit (new rule)

Keep in mind we do not know that. It is better to not reply and wait a few hours than get Reindl worked up. :) > On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Ruga wrote: > > I am AWAY for my office. > Real spam truly unnecessary. > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Aug 3,

Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold)

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >>> >>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be >>> that postscreen is bad aswell ? >> Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines, >> large mail services, and many

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Robert, As I tried to point out you are at the end of a thread injecting new “life” into it, which isn’t benefitting the group discussion of an issue. Thank you, Ryan > On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll: >> On

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Apparently you missed the rest of the thread as it was bypassing the scanning the SA would do. But you’re jumping in 11 days (and 42 messages) after the thread started. > On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > the subject Using Postfix and Postgrey - not

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging, > etc.). > > On the other hand, you may have disabled greylisting because you're > tired of futzing with it and just want your mail to work right again, > in which case, nevermind. > > > > O

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. >> >> I have el

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone. I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal” > On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole > <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote: > >

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

gt; wrote: > > > > Am 19.07.2016 um 21:54 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> Go away. > > who the hell do you think you are? > >>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net >>> <mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote:

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Benny Pedersen <m...@junc.eu> wrote: > > On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email >> checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > using postfix ?

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

Go away. > On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem are > supposed to work together, then you don#t get responses trying to explain you > why your supposed solution for a non existing

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: > > On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked >> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? > > y

Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked >> there FIRST before running it through Post

Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold

How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey? Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan through SpamAssassin? I’m watching all my log files and emails that are clearing PostGrey are

Re: Can I drop ****** SPAM ******** not send it on?

Thanks to this header my server automatically filtered your email into my scanned spam folder. Seems appropriate enough. :) > On Mar 7, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 07.03.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Chalmers: >> I see. Hmmm. >> I have the system

Re: Learning only on read emails?

I figured out a way to get the spamd user to scan the spam folders. Definitely helping. applying email in the inbox that have been read to the HAM is next on the list. > On Oct 20, 2015, at 9:39 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:29:27 -0500

Re: Learning only on read emails?

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:21 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:14:42 +0300 > Jari Fredriksson wrote: > >> On 10/20/2015 12:41 AM, Ryan Coleman wrote: >>> Actually it makes absolute sense since I dump my spam into a folder &g

Re: Learning only on read emails?

phone and it moves (but not read) then it’s not an option. > On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > Am 19.10.2015 um 23:21 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do

Learning only on read emails?

Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do it so that it only scans the read emails in a MAILDIR? — Ryan

Re: Learning only on read emails?

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 23:41 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >> Actually it makes absolute sense since I dump my spam into a folder to be >> scanned as spam and anything that is still in my inbox, and read, is

Re: Learning only on read emails?

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > Am 20.10.2015 um 00:17 schrieb Ryan Coleman: >>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 23:41 schrieb

Re: Learning only on read emails?

to be the waiting on the flag. I changed it and now it’s FRSadj. My guesses so far… F=Flagged R=Replied S=Seen > On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Bill Cole > <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2015, at 17:21, Ryan Coleman wrote: > >> Ok so

Re: Learning only on read emails?

Thanks, I’m going to read about it tonight. > On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> wrote: > > Ryan Coleman <ryan.cole...@cwis.biz> wrote: >> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do >> I do it so that it only s

Re: Learning only on read emails?

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Bill Cole > <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2015, at 17:21, Ryan Coleman wrote: > >> Ok so it was established I don’t have a ham scan (correct). So how do I do >> it so that it only scans the read e

Checking if sa-learn is actually learning

How do I go about checking that my automated scripts that handle spam learning are actually learning? I have literally hundreds of emails a day that go into the “new” folder I have set up and it does not seem to be learning from them. OS: Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS MTA: Postfix 2.11.0-1ubuntu1