On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas Pettersson stated:
Steven Dickenson wrote:
I can't agree with this. Many small businesses in the US get just these
kind of static connections from broadband ISPs.
Comcast, for example, has all of their static customers using rDNS that
would fail your tests, and
On 31 Oct 2006, John Rudd verbalised:
And, while I may be a little unyielding wrt to people whose ISPs are
like Telecom Italia, I'm not unsympathetic. I think, in this case, if
Italy did get mass quarantined by the rest of the world, it might
cause enough of an uproar to force Telecom Italia
Nix wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas Pettersson stated:
Steven Dickenson wrote:
I can't agree with this. Many small businesses in the US get just these kind
of static connections from broadband ISPs.
Comcast, for example, has all of their static customers using rDNS that would
fail your
PROTECTED]; Giampaolo Tomassoni [EMAIL PROTECTED];
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
Nix wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas Pettersson stated:
Steven Dickenson wrote:
I can't agree with this. Many
Most of these static customers are legitimate business networks
running their own mail server, and have neither the need nor desire
to relay their mail through Comcast's SMTP servers. I think your
general idea is very good, but you're reaching a little too far with
this one.
-
From: Dylan Bouterse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
I did a couple of times. :(
-Original Message-
From: Billy Huddleston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
John Rudd writes:
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
2) This sort of replaces the other set of rules I created, that did
this with metarules instead of a plugin. This made some of the
checks less useful. You probably don't need to use
Steven Dickenson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
keywords). My rules are really looking more for is this a _client_
host, not is this a dynamic host. That one check looks for
dynamic, but I'm not
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Giampaolo Tomassoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
Steven Dickenson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd
-Original Message-
From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:05 PM
To: Dylan Bouterse
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
# header
: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
-Original Message-
From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:05 PM
To: Dylan Bouterse
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Dylan
I did a couple of times. :(
-Original Message-
From: Billy Huddleston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:20 PM
To: Dylan Bouterse; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
You may want to download new
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's list of plugins.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.10.2006 09:13, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out,
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places even before
that plugin came out. But they give you a reverse DNS entry of your own
hostname if you ask for.
Well,
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places
even before
that plugin came out. But they give you a
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places
even before
that plugin came out. But
Alain Wolf wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places even
...omissis...
I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
keywords). My rules are really looking more for is this a _client_
host, not is this a dynamic host. That one check looks for
dynamic, but I'm not interested in exempting anyone because they're
static.
I would prefer not to have to deal with a single, computed
RELAY_CHECKER score, but with many different ones for each of the
triggered cases. This way it would be easier to tune scores from
this plugin.
To me, your plugin could trigger the following tags:
RELAY_CHECKER (at least
Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
We have
rather successfull anti-spam legislation and, except for botnets, really
little spam originates here.
Right ... but it's those botnets that this plugin is trying to catch.
And, while I may be a little unyielding wrt to people whose ISPs are
like Telecom
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
RELAY_CHECKER (at least one rule had been triggered. According to your code
would score 4 by default);
RC_NORDNS (scores 1);
RC_BADRDNS (scores 1);
RC_BADDNS (scores 1);
RC_IPINHOSTNAME (scores 1);
RC_DYNHOSTNAME (scores 1);
Agreed. This way the plugin
Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
We have
rather successfull anti-spam legislation and, except for
botnets, really
little spam originates here.
Right ... but it's those botnets that this plugin is trying to catch.
I use greylisting for this, and it works great to me. Also, it simply
John Rudd wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Hi,
Right off the bat I've disabled it. It, of course, hits on all mail
my local users send. That's not really acceptable in an ISP situation
so I've turned it off until tomorrow when I have the time to look at
the code and see
John Rudd wrote:
I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
keywords). [...] They've still got a hostname that looks like an
end-client, and an end-client shouldn't be connecting to other
people's mail servers. Any end-client that connects to someone
else's email
Steven Dickenson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
keywords). My rules are really looking more for is this a _client_
host, not is this a dynamic host. That one check looks for
dynamic, but I'm not
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 03:23:21PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
...and here was me just working out how to get exim to check this,
and have SpamAssassin add a score, and your mail arrived :-)
1) no RDNS for the machines that
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
keywords). My rules are really looking more for is this a
_client_ host, not is this a dynamic host. That one check looks
for dynamic, but I'm not interested in exempting
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
2) This sort of replaces the other set of rules I created, that did
this with metarules instead of a plugin. This made some of the checks
less useful. You probably don't need to use both methods.
So, what is the point of doing this as a plugin
John Rudd wrote:
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
2) This sort of replaces the other set of rules I created, that did
this with metarules instead of a plugin. This made some of the
checks less useful. You probably don't need to use both methods.
So, what is the point of doing
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Stuart Johnston wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
2) This sort of replaces the other set of rules I created, that did
this with metarules instead of a plugin. This made some of the
checks less useful. You probably don't need to use both methods.
So, what
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do in MimeDefang. The purpose of these checks is to try to
identify those messages that are likely to be coming directly (with no
intermediary mail server) from a zombie-bot, and are thus likely to be
spam (or
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:23 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do in MimeDefang. The purpose
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:23 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do
John Rudd wrote:
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do in MimeDefang. The purpose of these checks is to try to
identify those messages that are likely to be coming directly (with no
intermediary mail server) from a zombie-bot, and are thus likely to
John Rudd wrote:
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do in MimeDefang. The purpose of these checks is to try to
identify those messages that are likely to be coming directly (with no
intermediary mail server) from a zombie-bot, and are thus likely to
Rick Macdougall wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I've written a plugin for Spam Assassin that does the relay checks I
used to do in MimeDefang. The purpose of these checks is to try to
identify those messages that are likely to be coming directly (with no
intermediary mail server) from a
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's list of plugins.
I
39 matches
Mail list logo
