Testing for short message?
Has anyone come up with a way to test for short messages? I.e., I want to test for short messages that only include a single URL. Thanks for any help. - Mark
Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kai Schaetzl wrote: Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +: I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get a dynamic address unsubscribed You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP space? Honestly, and not meant to be offensive, but if you do that that's your problem you should know better. I don't accept such mail either. And don't tell me you cannot send mail another way. You're missing the point. I *subscribed* with a dyndns-style address in a dynamic space, then couldn't *unsubscribe* it because the list bounced everything. This was even when using my ISPs SMTP relay smarthost-style. I'm still posting from the same IP range, but using a real domainname, and never seem to have a problem hitting the list, but the list management addresses may be a different matter. C. - -- Craig McLeanhttp://fukka.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where the fun never starts Powered by FreeBSD, and GIN! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDrqPxMDDagS2VwJ4RAnS4AKDXkh1Gb86tKs/7/uTaIxwM5uiiXACgoru+ W95JsHh1QSu6ixEVRn07814= =jCh+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
From: Craig McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kai Schaetzl wrote: Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +: I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get a dynamic address unsubscribed You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP space? Honestly, and not meant to be offensive, but if you do that that's your problem you should know better. I don't accept such mail either. And don't tell me you cannot send mail another way. You're missing the point. I *subscribed* with a dyndns-style address in a dynamic space, then couldn't *unsubscribe* it because the list bounced everything. This was even when using my ISPs SMTP relay smarthost-style. I'm still posting from the same IP range, but using a real domainname, and never seem to have a problem hitting the list, but the list management addresses may be a different matter. Bounce back a message to the ezmlm software from the offending emailaddress. Ezmlm will see this and send you a probe. Bounce back that probe and you will be removed from the mailinglist. It is not a nice methode but a working one. This is told you by Tony Finch at 22-12-05. Maurice Lucas
Re: sender-valid SMTP callbacks (Re: Does tuxorama.com sound fa miliar to anyone?)
Tony Finch wrote: [...] I'm still working on a way to do this - I'm sure it's not impossible, but I haven't had much success yet. Ideally, the Linux machine would do an LDAP query to the Exchange server, but unless you can help me figure out how to do it, then I guess I'll just remain a f*cking idiot admin. It's fairly straightforward with Exim. http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/MsExchangeAddressVerification There are s many ways to do it. - you can have it done using LDAP online like described by the documentation you pointed at - you can do it using LDAP offline by polling regularly and creating a local database, like others pointed out - using exim, you can simply perform callouts agains Exchange to verify a given recipient actually exists - someone told me that postfix could perform callouts like exim does? - if postfix can't, you could use a very easy policy-daemon to perform the callouts (I'd start using Perl Mail::Checkuser) - sendmail could use a simple milter, probably not much harder than postfix-policy-daemon Basically, there is NO justification to bounce no-existant-recipients. However, I admit that e.g. bounces caused by users being over-quota are much harder to prevent, causing me lots of trouble... -- CU, Patrick.
Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:32:57PM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Well, ressource-wise it makes a difference if you run a million mails thru SA or if you can unload 90% at MTA level and run only the remaining 100.000 thru SA. Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be extremely fast so that MTAs could use it while an email is inbound. That would allow (for example) hitting a number of RBLs and scoring them, instead of using a single RBL as a go/no-go decision. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect[EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be extremely fast so that MTAs could use it while an email is inbound. That would allow (for example) hitting a number of RBLs and scoring them, instead of using a single RBL as a go/no-go decision. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect[EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe it would then have to be MTA specific as SpamAssassin is not always (not normally) used during the SMTP client conversation. If you use Postfix, you can gain this type of functionality; see: http://www.policyd-weight.org/ or possibly: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=135331 Gary V _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
