Re: Decisions on how to handle mail from some domains
On 02/23/2011 07:17 PM, Alex wrote: I'm wondering what people's opinion is on domains like verticalresponse.com and vresp.com, and others, that seem to distribute mail to anyone who wants to spend the money to buy a list from them. Constantcontact might be in this same business, but it seems like their reputation has slightly improved over the past few months... While some of the mail from that sender seems legitimate, other mail clearly isn't, but it has the same header as a legitimate mail, making it very difficult to properly train bayes or otherwise accurately determine that it's indeed spam and it should be discarded. I know this issue has been raised on this list before, but is there any more information that people might have with regards to their policy on mail such as this? Those are called ESPs (Email Service Providers), and they vary from complete spammers to companies that are genuinely trying to provide a clean notification service. Even the best of them fail at times, as has been witnessed on this list. Knujon has some unsubscribe voodoo in its reporting mechanism that can probably help deal with the ESPs that try to be on the level. The others should hopefully fail to evade the DNSBLs. To configure this within spamassassin, register for both knujon and spamcop and configure your spamcop account to bcc knujon in its reports (there are directions for this at knujon.org), then configure spamassassin's spamcop plugin to use your spamcop account. With this set, each message you report with `spamassassin -r` will be reported to spamcop and knujon (and Razor and Pyzor if they are enabled), and once it hits knujon, you will be unsubscribed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Decisions on how to handle mail from some domains
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:17:47 -0500 Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com wrote: While some of the mail from that sender seems legitimate, other mail clearly isn't, but it has the same header as a legitimate mail, making it very difficult to properly train bayes or otherwise accurately determine that it's indeed spam and it should be discarded. I wouldn't obsess over it. Bayes is pretty good at picking out the relevant markers of messages and ignoring irrelevant parts. Train the spam as spam and the non-spam as non-spam and Bayes should eventually figure it out. [That's my experience, at any rate. However, we use our own Bayes implementation that works a little differently from the built-in SA version, so maybe SA will behave differently...] Regards, David.
Re: Decisions on how to handle mail from some domains
Hello Alex, Am 2011-02-23 22:17:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: Hi, I'm wondering what people's opinion is on domains like verticalresponse.com and vresp.com, and others, that seem to distribute mail to anyone who wants to spend the money to buy a list from them. Constantcontact might be in this same business, but it seems like their reputation has slightly improved over the past few months... [ '/etc/courier/bofh' ]- badfrom @verticalresponse.com badfrom @vresp.com I have them in my bofh since over 6 years and courier reject on SMTP level. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux itsystems@tdnet France EURL itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability) Owner Michelle KonzackOwner Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 (homeoffice) 50, rue de Soultz Kinzigstraße 17 67100 Strasbourg/France 77694 Kehl/Germany Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.flexray4linux.org/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.can4linux.org/ Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de ICQ#328449886 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Decisions on how to handle mail from some domains
Hi, While some of the mail from that sender seems legitimate, other mail clearly isn't, but it has the same header as a legitimate mail, making it very difficult to properly train bayes or otherwise accurately determine that it's indeed spam and it should be discarded. I wouldn't obsess over it. Bayes is pretty good at picking out the relevant markers of messages and ignoring irrelevant parts. Train the spam as spam and the non-spam as non-spam and Bayes should eventually figure it out. [That's my experience, at any rate. However, we use our own Bayes implementation that works a little differently from the built-in SA version, so maybe SA will behave differently...] Yes, thanks, good advice. The difficulty is determining which of it bayes should learn as ham and which as spam, of course. With at least this sender, the delineation is very subjective. Do people really subscribe to this crap? :-) Thanks, Alex
