Sorry Fritz..
This is the bit I don't understand...if it's originating from 216.32.180.12,
where does the 14.0.0.0/8' block come into the mix?
Aug-03-11 08:32:04 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [DenyStrict] 216.32.180.12
to: ksm...@bldc.com [spam found] (blocked by
denySMTPConnections strict '14.0.0.
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>As the IP blocking has ONLY occurred for mail's
>blacklisted, I cannot defy the logic of breaking something
>that does work, and does alert - via ASSP logs
>of bad mail senders. I am always glad to deal with BL's!
>
>I like it, it works!
>
>Forgive me...
Yup, I agree with Peter...
-Original Message-
From: Peter W Bowey [mailto:supp...@pbcomp.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:48 PM
To: ASSP development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Assp-test] This is now becoming a joke
> No. It did not show that. Would you please be so kind
> No. It did not show that. Would you please be so kind to read the logs
> which are in the first posting of this thread and to read the
> introduction of enhancedOrigin feature from Thomas:
>
> The log entry in the starting mail was:
>>
>>Aug-03-11 08:32:04 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [DenyStrict] 216.3
> I have seen it... I SCORE on certain BLs, but only block on the very
> reliable ones that quickly delist (WITHOUT charging extortion) once an
> offender fixes their problem.
Many thanks Charles,
On my dedicated Linux Server www + mail, I run
a clean ship and have NEVER caused or
personally rai
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>My own explanation was derived from the observation
>that all current reported issues with this *new* ASSP
>behaviour will show the mail host is blacklisted!
No. It did not show that. Would you please be so kind to read the logs
which are in the first pos
On 2011-08-03 10:57 AM, Peter W Bowey wrote:
>> Like I said, anyone who blocks on a BL that requires payment for removal
>> gets what they deserve.
> Sorry, but that is a non-realistic statement!
It's very realistic to those who live in the real world.
> Thanks to ASSP, I no longer need be *pen
> No it is not your report, but you commented and explained it. And your
> explanation for this case was questionable and will not help the
> reporting user.
>
> ASSP uses ALSO DNSBL lookups for IPs on the mail route, but it uses
> also manually maintained blocklists (in V2 only) like
> denySMTPC
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>Hi Fritz,
>
>This is a bit tiresome, but it is NOT my report
>about ASPP *logs*.
>
>I am just one of 'many' that noticed the recent ASSP
>change and accept it based on good facts!
>
>Logs or not, I think the fact that ASSP uses Balcklists
>origins as it do
> Like I said, anyone who blocks on a BL that requires payment for removal
> gets what they deserve.
Charles,
Sorry, but that is a non-realistic statement!
Thanks to ASSP, I no longer need be *penalized*
by my client's broken and sick computers!
Are you in IT support?
I would suspect not?
Othe
Hi Fritz,
This is a bit tiresome, but it is NOT my report
about ASPP *logs*.
I am just one of 'many' that noticed the recent ASSP
change and accept it based on good facts!
Logs or not, I think the fact that ASSP uses Balcklists
origins as it does is GOOD. Amen!
Thanks Thomas, I like this prot
On 2011-08-03 10:35 AM, Peter W Bowey wrote:
> I operate a computer recovery Workshop here,
> and some of my 'bad' clients Computers have
> caused a serious blacklist event when they spam
> through my www + mail connectivity linms!
>
> As I operate a real business that needs mails,
> I have 'ocaa
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>Fritz, 'thanks' but the given mail site [given] is on a BLACKLIST!
It was not blocked by ASSP because of that. And I thought we are
handling here ASSP logs,
Please read the originating mail again and you will find this: "
blocked by denySMTPConnections or
>> However, the 'removal' from a officail black list IP
>> is SLOW (days), unless you pay a up-front fee to
>> the Blacklist site.
>
> Not true except for a few ones that I would never block on...
>
> Most have a delisting process that you must follow, but do NOT charge
> for it...
>
> --
>
> Bes
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Assp-test] This is now becoming a joke
> The problem her was NOT a blacklist. It happened because entries were
> put manually into denySMTPConnectionsFromAlways lin the form of
> 14.0.0.0/8.
Fritz, 'thanks' but the given mail site [giv
On 2011-08-03 9:06 AM, Peter W Bowey wrote:
> However, the 'removal' from a officail black list IP
> is SLOW (days), unless you pay a up-front fee to
> the Blacklist site.
Not true except for a few ones that I would never block on...
Most have a delisting process that you must follow, but do N
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>14.0.0.0/8
Remove 14.0.0.0/8 (and similar address blocks) from
denySMTPConnectionsFromAlways.
--
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
The must-attend event
The problem her was NOT a blacklist. It happened because entries were
put manually into denySMTPConnectionsFromAlways lin the form of
14.0.0.0/8.
This was obviouly retrieved from some list of "Bogons" which
circulated in the WEB.
It is highly dangerous to have such address blocks blocked, because
>Thanks, I worked that out myself...:)
>I'm surprised that MS still gets blacklistedmust happen hourly...
Hi Steve,
A new mail host blacklisting usually kick's in hourly!
It depends on the DNS TTL.
However, the 'removal' from a officail black list IP
is SLOW (days), unless you pay a up-fr
Thanks, I worked that out myself...:)
I'm surprised that MS still gets blacklistedmust happen hourly...
--
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
The must-attend event for mobile developers. Conn
> Thanks
> Steve Moffat
> Operations Director
> Optimum IT Solutions
Sorry Steve,
the syntax of my last mail was a little wrong!
..I have been typing too fast, with too much
to do (grin)!..
The correct url path for checking email IP's
is like this: (next line)
http://www.robtex.com/ip/216.32.1
> Thanks Peter
>
> Any idea why it just seems to have kicked in a lot recently? By recently
> I mean in the last week.
>
> Thanks
> Steve Moffat
> Operations Director
> Optimum IT Solutions
Hi Steve,
Well, simply because the latest ASSP devel version
has 'improved' it's mail protection methods
Thanks.
Thanks
Steve Moffat
Operations Director
Optimum IT Solutions
TEL: 441 292 8849
On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, "Steve Moffat" wrote:
>
> Thanks Peter
>
> Any idea why it just seems to have kicked in a lot recently? By recently I
> mean in the last week.
>
> Thanks
> Steve Moffat
> Op
Thanks Peter
Any idea why it just seems to have kicked in a lot recently? By recently I
mean in the last week.
Thanks
Steve Moffat
Operations Director
Optimum IT Solutions
TEL: 441 292 8849
On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:18 AM, "Peter W Bowey" wrote:
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I sent a mail yesterday regardi
>I have turned off denystrict for the moment
>
> Steve
Hi Steve,
To clarify, on your previous email!
Quote: " [DenyStrict] 216.32.180.12 to:
ksm...@bldc.com blocked by denySMTPConnections or droplist strict:
14.0.0.0/8"
That email has an entry on a blacklist!
Here is the report:
Test
> Hi
>
> I sent a mail yesterday regarding these log entries and no reply yet. It's
> getting beyond a joke now. I am seeing these lines in the log more & more
> often
> What is the issue here?
>
> ASSP version 2.0.2(3.2.10)
>
> Aug-03-11 08:31:27 [Worker_1] Info: Name Server 192.168.175
I have turned off denystrict for the moment
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Moffat [mailto:st...@optimum.bm]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:57 AM
To: 'assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: [Assp-test] This is now becoming a joke
Hi
I sent a mail yesterday regardin
Hi
I sent a mail yesterday regarding these log entries and no reply yet. It's
getting beyond a joke now. I am seeing these lines in the log more & more
often
What is the issue here?
ASSP version 2.0.2(3.2.10)
Aug-03-11 08:31:27 [Worker_1] Info: Name Server 192.168.175.1: ResponseTime
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>Hallo Fritz,
>
>bei mir steht da jetzt "0.5-1.5-1-14" drin.
>
>
>Bedeutet das das assp wenn 0.5 erreicht wird automatisch mehr Spam
>einließt ?
>
>Christian
Rebuildspamdb.pl will delete NotSpam if the norm goes below "Low".
Is the text in the GUI not
schrieb Fritz Borgstedt:
> ASSP development mailing list
> schreibt:
>> Corpus norm: 0.7415 (ok - balanced)
>
>
> The norm is absolutely correct, as the message from rebuildspamdb.pl
> says.
>
> The log also says:
>
> Corpus correction settings ( see autoCorrectCorpus in ASSP GUI) -
> low:0.5 high
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>Corpus norm: 0.7415 (ok - balanced)
The norm is absolutely correct, as the message from rebuildspamdb.pl
says.
The log also says:
Corpus correction settings ( see autoCorrectCorpus in ASSP GUI) -
low:0.5 high:1.5 minimum files:1 minimum days:14
Hallo,
ich verwende ASSP Version: 1.8.5.9(2.0.02) und habe das Problem das
meine Corpus Norm ständig sinkt. Ansonsten läuft alles prima. Wenn ich
aber unter 0.5 komme kommen mehr Spam durch. Zur Zeit behelfe ich mich
in dem ich Not-Spam lösche. Dann gehts wieder ein paar Tage.
Anscheinend lies
32 matches
Mail list logo
