On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
It sounds like Charles' user base and cost/benefit analysis is
different, and that's fine.
Actually no, it's not. I arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis and have
instituted the same general policy - I block all hosts on PBL. Thought I
made that part cl
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
That's not my definition at all
The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat yourself.
. it's not even the definition of any mailadmin I've ever
I can't have individual maildrop .rc files...just database.
So I was thinking about detect attachments inside spamassassin, tag
message and strip attachments in the maildrop.
I know that mimeheader do what I need, but I couldn't insert mimeheader
into database (sql userpref) rules at user level.
Am 2009-06-25 08:56:00, schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't like receiving spam from
> companies that don't accept complaints...
Hihi...
[ '/etc/courier/bofh' ]-
badfrom @hotmail.com
badfrom @hotmail.de
b
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 15:23, LuKreme wrote:
> On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I don't care. It's the *meaning* that matters. Not the *word*.
>
> Fine, then, the meaning. Your meaning is *wanted* and my meaning is mail
> from a verifiable source with a verifiable (fixed) IP
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:23:22 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> That's not my definition at all; it's not even the definition of any
> mailadmin I've ever met. We reject mail users *want* all the time.
> It's our job.
> ...
> Just because the
> recipient WANTS it does not make it legitimate.
> ...
>
On Dienstag 23 Juni 2009 Justin Mason wrote:
> that's ok, we take that into account. it does pretty well against
> zmi's corpus in particular.
Yeah, also helped in real live. Quite a few messages were finally tagged
as spam because of EMAILBL, with no reported FP.
It's a pity it will go away. A
On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail fr
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Pawe�~B T�~Ycza wrote:
Dnia 2009-06-26, pią o godzinie 14:15 -0700, John Hardin pisze:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Pawe~B T~Ycza wrote:
Dnia 2009-06-23, wto o godzinie 09:39 +0200, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
body OBFU_URI_WWDD_2
/\bwww\s(?:\W\s)?\w{3,6}\d{2,6}\s(?:\W\s)?(?:c\s?o\s?m|
Dnia 2009-06-26, pią o godzinie 14:15 -0700, John Hardin pisze:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Pawe~B T~Ycza wrote:
>
> > Dnia 2009-06-23, wto o godzinie 09:39 +0200, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
>
> body OBFU_URI_WWDD_2
> /\bwww\s(?:\W\s)?\w{3,6}\d{2,6}\s(?:\W\s)?(?:c\s?o\s?m|n\s?e\s?t|o\s?r\s?g)\b
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Pawe�~B T�~Ycza wrote:
Dnia 2009-06-23, wto o godzinie 09:39 +0200, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
body OBFU_URI_WWDD_2
/\bwww\s(?:\W\s)?\w{3,6}\d{2,6}\s(?:\W\s)?(?:c\s?o\s?m|n\s?e\s?t|o\s?r\s?g)\b/i
The spammers strike in weekend again. Unfortunately the rule above
doesn't work fo
"R
> I'm new to the list, and haven't been working with Spamassasin for
> long (about 1 year). It worked fine filtering spam, but now more and
> more are getting through. I found something called RulesDuJour on
> the net, but it seems it's not being updated anymore. Is it usefull
> to stil use it,
Hi All,
I'm new to the list, and haven't been working with Spamassasin for long
(about 1 year). It worked fine filtering spam, but now more and more are
getting through. I found something called RulesDuJour on the net, but it
seems it's not being updated anymore. Is it usefull to stil use it, o
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will 'never' see
legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
Accord
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon the
Please respond to LIST not to personal e-mail.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, ferna...@dfcom.com.br wrote:
I would like spamassassin does:
Read attach extensions from userpref (database),
filter that mime and set a message header,
maildrop (that is my mda), drops this attach and delivery only text part.
Charles Gregory wrote:
There are always exceptions.
Those can send me (postmaster@) a mail (without beeing blocked)
asking for whitelisting.
The reject message contains a link explaining how to do that.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Imho, the important question is, why such home user wants to send large
amounts of mail
Keep in mind, the definition of 'large' may be arbitrarily SMALL for some
ISP's Maybe just 100 recipients.
if (s)he can't find any (free) h
On 24.06.09 22:56, ferna...@dfcom.com.br wrote:
I'm trying to find a solution allowing user filtering attachments. My
environment uses sql user tables.
Um, do you mean 'reject if mail has attachment of a certain type'?
Or do you mean you want to run an actual filtering program to examine
the co
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
what you do is your choice.
(nod) I've already made my choice clear, and would advocate the same
for anyone else. My argument was only that we should not create a false
sense of confidence that we will 'never' see legitimate mail come from a
PBL-l
On 24.06.09 22:56, ferna...@dfcom.com.br wrote:
> I'm trying to find a solution allowing user filtering attachments. My
> environment uses sql user tables.
>
> I was using mimeheader, it works at local.cf but no inside userpref table.
> Spamassassin shows the rules at debug, but it doesn't work (w
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
>> summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
>> please repost.
On 26.06.09 10:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon
On 6/26/2009 4:18 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> These people are not without 'other solutions'. But they are making the
best of a bad one. Is this enough to warrant down-scoring the PBL? I no
longer think so. But just so we're clear, just because an ISP says that
they have a 'policy' does not me
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon the weight of
this information, I have upgraded my MTA
On 6/26/2009 4:07 PM, Jack Pepper wrote:
Quoting LuKreme :
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lo
Quoting LuKreme :
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lot of spam, but
the fact that it will block
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
I still welcome suggestions for handling the few remaining cases where my
procmail chokes on a mailbox limit. Probably more of a PM question than an
SA question, but seeing how the cause for concern is backscatter from
'full mailbox' DSN's I'm figuri
28 matches
Mail list logo
