Re: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist

2024-04-12 Thread Noel Butler
On 13/04/2024 03:20, Bill Cole wrote: In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist entries in the official I'm good with that, so long as likes of google are not in any whitelist either. I haven't been following all the anti spam stuff as much as I used to (I have

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread jdow
On 20240412 16:14:44, Greg Troxel wrote: jdow writes: One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably drive yourself to an early grave trying to get the perfect Bayes training plus perfect rule set. spam is bulk

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread Greg Troxel
jdow writes: > One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where > my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably drive yourself > to an early grave trying to get the perfect Bayes training plus > perfect rule set. spam is bulk and unsolicited. So yes the same

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread jdow
On 20240412 15:56:15, Greg Troxel wrote: I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree Bill Cole writes: 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver. Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread Greg Troxel
Also, I'm not sure you said this, but I would say: default whitelist is dkim only This means All existing entries are converted to dkim as well as we can, not worrying if they break. We'll prune ones that don't work as dkim, and add a signing domain as we figure it out, as

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread Greg Troxel
I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree Bill Cole writes: > 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs > need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver. Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from receivers. > 2. If senders have FPs on

Re: problems with Plugin::ASN and spam

2024-04-12 Thread Darrell Budic
> On Apr 11, 2024, at 5:51 PM, Darrell Budic wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM, Bill Cole > wrote: >> >> On 2024-04-10 at 21:19:48 UTC-0400 (Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:19:48 -0500) >> Darrell Budic mailto:bu...@onholyground.com>> >> is rumored to have said: >> On Apr 10, 2024, at 2:52 

Re: Dynamic blacklist ?

2024-04-12 Thread Bill Cole
On 2024-04-12 at 02:14:59 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:14:59 +0200) Pierluigi Frullani is rumored to have said: Hello all, do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user or eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts ? If you enable the AWL

Re: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist

2024-04-12 Thread Jared Hall via users
On 4/12/2024 1:20 PM, Bill Cole wrote: In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist entries in the official SpamAssassin rules for '*@*.microsoft.com' are inappropriate. Note that there is an entry for '*@accountprotection.microsoft.com' which is still justified as far

Defining what the default welcomelist means

2024-04-12 Thread Bill Cole
The de-welcomelisting of MS marketing raises the question: Why do we maintain a "default" welcomelist? Based on the documentation, the original purpose of the def_welcomelist* (then whitelist) feature set was to give a set of senders of purely legitimate mail from FPs, with a listing having

WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist

2024-04-12 Thread Bill Cole
Yesterday I received marketing spam from "Microsoft " advertising something apparently called "Microsoft Build" which is either a website or a marketing event: IDGAF. Spam was sent via Marketo, which I gather is now part of the sewer we call Adobe. It was absolutely authentic. Fully authentic

Re: another problem in disable in spamassassin

2024-04-12 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 12.04.24 10:50, natan wrote: I have problem with disabled spamhaus.org in spamassassin: In local.cf I disable check like: ... dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org dns_query_restriction deny zen.spamhaus.org dns_query_restriction deny dbl.spamhaus.org But in mail.log I fund still

another problem in disable in spamassassin

2024-04-12 Thread natan
Hi I have problem with disabled spamhaus.org in spamassassin: In local.cf I disable check like: ... dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org dns_query_restriction deny zen.spamhaus.org dns_query_restriction deny dbl.spamhaus.org ... But in mail.log I fund still checking RCVD_IN_PBL, URIBL_CSS_A,

RE: Dynamic blacklist ?

2024-04-12 Thread Marc
> do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user or > eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts ? Yes create your own dns blacklist > A sort of auto_learn but only for addresses ( to or from ) ? No such thing as only for... You have to

Dynamic blacklist ?

2024-04-12 Thread Pierluigi Frullani
Hello all, do you know if there is a way to have a blacklist, either for user or eventually for an entire server, that could be feeded via some scripts ? A sort of auto_learn but only for addresses ( to or from ) ? I'll trying to explain: I maintain a couple of mail servers that have a very very