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 Dec 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
It's also fair to say any ESP such as Return Path taking money to
deliver mail should be optimising it {or offering advice on
optimisation) so it does *not* score high. Otherwise what are their
customers paying them for?
Return Path is not
-Original Message-
From: LuKreme [mailto:krem...@kreme.com]
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 4:59 p.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: emailreg.org - tainted white list
On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
So far only 1 person on this list has
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
the day
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's
Res wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
no whitelist should ever become default
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No
On ons 16 dec 2009 12:10:11 CET, Res wrote
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA, the day it is,
is the day I look elsewhere.
please post on this maillist what you do when you find replacement for sa
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Christian Brel wrote:
The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered sensibly;
WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE SCORING RULE THAT
FAVOURS A COMMERCIAL BULK MAILER. Namely the negative score for Habeas?
This point has been answered. SA ships with that rule
On 16-Dec-2009, at 07:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending through
too many spams, use it. Even
On 12/16/2009 3:23 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Dec-2009, at 07:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered sensibly;
WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE SCORING RULE
THAT
FAVOURS A COMMERCIAL BULK MAILER. Namely the negative
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:39:25 -0600
McDonald, Dan dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered
sensibly; WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL
Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm dense. But to
spell out my question more explicitly:
what do you mean by personal response spam? Is that just
Richard's on-list responses we've all seen? Or something
else? (did I miss that part of the conversation?). And what
do you
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 16/12/2009 14:23, LuKreme wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending through
too many spams, use it. Even lists that
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth, I just ran sa-stats.pl against my last ten days of logs.
The only mention of habeas was:
10HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 367 1.450.00 17.36
So it hit on 17.36% of my Ham, and 0% of my Spam.
With the
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
From: Res r...@ausics.net
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 03:18
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of
From: Mike Cardwell spamassassin-us...@lists.grepular.com
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:33
On 16/12/2009 14:23, LuKreme wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a
From: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:56
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth, I just ran sa-stats.pl against my last ten days of
logs. The only mention of habeas was:
10HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 367 1.450.00
The trouble with this is how often are these rules being re-examined
and re-evaluated?
Not that often. HABEAS has been through three iterations since those
rules were set at −4 and −8.
What is enabled by default should be the safest possible settings.
Relying on a third party that is
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 running ordinary sa-update on 3.2.5.
they can
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 the entire list to prove you wrong.
I'm the only one? Really? That doesn't jibe with my memory,
but I'm not scanning the entire list to prove you wrong.
Really?
Yeah, sorry, not buying it.
LuKreme et al,
you were not the only one much goes under or over the radar on the
list...
re those rules, we see 2 to 4
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:40:44 +0100
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Bill Landry a écrit :
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases),
is back...
Bill
he switched MUA, but forgot to switch helo and get a different IP
range...
Good work Columbo. Tell me, how
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 23:07 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
guess.
someone, somewhere is alreay
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 07:29 -0600, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
That's the issue with pulling all of the whitelists out of the scoring
mix - the whitelist components are part of the mix that allows 5 points
to indicate spam. And I was trying to counter the argument that we
should simply rip those
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 15-Dec-2009, at 09:42, Charles Gregory wrote:
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
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
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
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
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
r...@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
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
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
{^_^}
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:54
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Perhaps are some kind of spammer trying to divert attention from
yourself?
Snicker I have longer bona fides on this
jdow wrote:
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm dense. But to spell out
my
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rob McEwen wrote:
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory 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. Habeas wasn't involved
in emailreg.org, though. No connection at all.
--
J.D. Falk
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
From: J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:28
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory 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. Habeas wasn't
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:11:13 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:28:05 -0700
J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory 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. Habeas
wasn't
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Last week the blackhats that make up the '$pamAssassin PMC' sought to
silence people who object to paid whitelists appearing in the core
program which seek to give advantage to certain ESP's. vocal in the odd
behaviour of the program. Namely those listed in whitelist 'Habeas' (a
river flowing back
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases), is
back...
Bill
On 14-Dec-2009, at 07:59, Bill Landry wrote:
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases), is
back…
Ah, that explains the tone and typo pattern of that email.
While I am suspicious of emailreg.org and Barracuda's ties to each other I am
not moving to a shack in Montana
Christian Brel wrote:
Last week the blackhats that make up the '$pamAssassin PMC' sought to
silence people who object to paid whitelists appearing in the core
program which seek to give advantage to certain ESP's. vocal in the odd
behaviour of the program. Namely those listed in whitelist
LuKreme wrote:
On 14-Dec-2009, at 07:59, Bill Landry wrote:
Christian Brel, AKA "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" (among other aliases), is
back…
Ah, that explains the tone and typo pattern of that email.
While I am suspicious of emailreg.org and Barracuda's ties to each
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:28:22 -0800
Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
If you think about it, if Barracuda, a spam filtering company,
started selling access to spammers, how long do you think Barracuda
would stay in business.
To quote Dean Drako of Barracuda on a 2008 visit to the UK Just sell
-1
/dev/null? Let's see if he earns it.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 01:54
Subject: Re: emailreg.org - tainted white list
Last week the blackhats
From: Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 07:28
LuKreme wrote:
On 14-Dec-2009, at 07:59, Bill Landry wrote:
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases), is
back…
Ah, that explains the tone and typo pattern of that email.
While I am suspicious of
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 16:09 +, Christian Brel wrote:
If it's so clear cut, why is the option for the owner of the said
Barracuda spam device *not* able to disable emailreg.org, but they
*can* disable the Barracuda whitelist 'proper'?
Not germane to the spamassassin list. Please redirect
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:37:02 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Yup - he's a spammer.
{enter stage left the name calling}
That's what I heard about you JD, ain't that a blast! I better get my
$20 out and trot over to barracuda.spam.for.mo...@emailreg.org then, so
I can grease the wheels
If I ever do anything questionable, or not ethical, or even illegal, I
hope that Richard is the one to call me out on it publicly because once
he's confused issues with his personal insults and his best Art Bell
impression, I'll then come out smelling like a rose.
If he can ever stay banned, I
But I will miss (a) the entertainment value of some of his posts (his
dark forces one from earlier today was a classic) --AND-- last but
not
least--I will miss his willingness to break through the political
correctness and bring up various points that few others were willing
(or
brave
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
Charles Gregory wrote:
I ask again, on the issue of whitelists, is there a serious issue with
spammers targetting white-listed IP's as favored candidates for hacking?
I'm okay with the answer being 'no'. I'm sure people with large servers
and good statistics could answer this question. But I
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
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for maintaining and bugfixing
such modules to
On 12/14/2009 10:23 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:23 +, Martin Gregorie wrote:
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:39 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
your modules are all there already and much of it is already managed as
you suggest: they're called rules.. you can even switch them on or off,
or add your own modules /plugins/modules.
SA provides an Open Source FRAMEWORK which
On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
guess.
someone, somewhere is alreay converting ClamV signatures to HUGE (slow)
rule files, forgot
Hello,
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 someone starts throwing arond stupid accusations, then
the person attacked focuses their efforts on 'defending' themselves,
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
selling access to spammers, how long do you think Barracuda would stay in
business. Their customers who got the spam would move elsewhere. So I
really don't think that Barracuda is going to sell out their main business
to make $20 off of a few spammers.
Bill Landry a écrit :
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases), is
back...
Bill
he switched MUA, but forgot to switch helo and get a different IP range...
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
I ask again, on the issue of whitelists, is there a serious issue with
spammers targetting white-listed IP's as favored candidates for hacking?
I'm okay with the answer being 'no'. I'm sure people with large servers and
good statistics
71 matches
Mail list logo
