Junk skrev den 2017-12-03 04:09:
Is there any list that can be trusted and is publicly available or
unless you pay nothing is trusted?
if paid dont trust
its same boat as let me hold your pocket
Is there any list that can be trusted and is publicly available or unless you
pay nothing is trusted?
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2017, at 13:33 (-0500), David Jones wrote:
>>
>> Then you can start experimenting with RBLs at
>> http://multirbl.valli.org/lo
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 12:53 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017, Junk wrote:
>
>>> If you trust your Bayes you might consider implementing a BAYES_999 rule
>>> that adds another point.
>>
>> I might look into it
>>
>>> Getting past URIBL_BLOCKED will help.
>>
>> Yes once it starte
I am using sendmail.
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 12:33 PM, David Jones wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2017 10:39 AM, Junk wrote:
>> i implemented all of the filters yo mentioned and the score went up from
>> 3.5. to 3.9 on an example spam email i was testing.
>> I will look further into more filters.
>> I see
On 2 Dec 2017, at 13:33 (-0500), David Jones wrote:
Then you can start experimenting with RBLs at
http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/
Be VERY careful with that list of DNSBLs. For years they listed and
tested my local, private, never-public DNSBL (which has always had an
external view that "li
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017, Junk wrote:
If you trust your Bayes you might consider implementing a BAYES_999 rule that
adds another point.
I might look into it
Getting past URIBL_BLOCKED will help.
Yes once it started to work again there is less spam although i still get some
that are formatted a
On 12/02/2017 11:22 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 02/12/17 13:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12/01/2017 11:17 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.126.131 listed in
wl.mailspike.net]
0.4 MIME_HTML_MOSTL
On 12/02/2017 10:39 AM, Junk wrote:
i implemented all of the filters yo mentioned and the score went up from 3.5.
to 3.9 on an example spam email i was testing.
I will look further into more filters.
I see lots of spam that is formatted as image and those are not being caught.
What is your M
On 02/12/17 13:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12/01/2017 11:17 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.126.131 listed in
wl.mailspike.net]
0.4 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html
i implemented all of the filters yo mentioned and the score went up from 3.5.
to 3.9 on an example spam email i was testing.
I will look further into more filters.
I see lots of spam that is formatted as image and those are not being caught.
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 7:07 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Junk wrote:
>
>> Thx for the tips.
>> I will look at theses and try to implement.
>> I definitely need more ways to get more scores so those that score 3.4-4.9
>> finally go over 5 and are marked spam.
>
> If you trust
On 2017-12-01 16:17, Bill Cole wrote:
On 1 Dec 2017, at 8:44 (-0500), Tom Hendrikx wrote:
You're mistaken about postfix. It does not rewrite the From headers in
the way you describe, unless you explicitly configured it to.
It will if it is very old (<2.2) OR if it has an organically-evolved
c
On 12/01/2017 11:17 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.126.131 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
0.4 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images
On 28.11.17 19:39, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I'm having more and more problems with the HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_* set
of rules recently generating false positives.
On 30/11/17 12:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
those have lower scorew with BAYES and network rules enabled.
configure BAYES and enable ne
14 matches
Mail list logo