On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:11:48PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman said
Is sa-learn really so intensive that multiple instances will bring down
a machine, or is that mostly a concern for older hardware?
Yup. When I run it over one message at a time, it takes maybe 3 seconds
per message. For 5 at
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 06:47:22AM +0100, Karsten M. Self said
on Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 03:43:46AM +1000, Rob Weir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is a good point, but it's not something I notice anymore. I scan
through my lists and hit y on any spam in mutt; it passes the mail to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:53:33AM -0700, Steve Lamb said
Rob Weir wrote:
I'm dropping mail based on a DATA regexp. I have the following line in
/etc/postfix/ms-crap
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the DATA regexp come after all the
DATA is already across the wire? There has
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 04:07:36AM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
Gah, I didn't think of that. So I've still eaten a stupid amount of
traffic this week. Does anyone have any neat scripts for automaticaly
blacklisting Swen-sending ips for a period of time with Postfix?
It has been something on my
Rob Weir wrote:
I'm dropping mail based on a DATA regexp. I have the following line in
/etc/postfix/ms-crap
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the DATA regexp come after all the
DATA is already across the wire? There has been some matter of debate on that
issue and the general consensus
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:24:17PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 03:48 GMT, Karsten M. Self penned:
It was during that whole discussion in which you were actively involved.
(Please let's not rehash that here.)
See d-u.
Found it!
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon said
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen
and the next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here,
I learned that some people use tmda as a part of their spam
defense, and looking into it I soon learned that
If
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
Hm, now I check, 27253 of those did *not* come from my secondary MXs.
That is a stupid amount of crap. In fact, it is 3.8985GB of crap.
Imagine that instead of dropping that shit on the floor, you sent a CR
query. You've just doubled
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon said
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen
and the next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here,
I learned that some people use
on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen
and the next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here,
I learned that some people use tmda as a part of their spam
defense, and looking into it I
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 02:53, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
Hm, now I check, 27253 of those did *not* come from my secondary MXs.
That is a stupid amount of crap. In fact, it is 3.8985GB of crap.
Imagine that instead of dropping that shit on
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:53:49AM -0700, Steve C. Lamb said
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
Hm, now I check, 27253 of those did *not* come from my secondary MXs.
That is a stupid amount of crap. In fact, it is 3.8985GB of crap.
Imagine that instead of dropping
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:20:46AM +0100, Karsten M. Self said
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you have the level of MTA control neccessary to automatically reply
to CR queries, then just block Swen at the MTA level. I've rejected
34552
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:41AM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
Yup. Reason #23131 why CR is a poor solution. I'm quite amazed at how
well SA and simple checks like my Postfix body regexp work. I still get
spam, and oodles of it, but it's almost flawlessly classified. I check
out my spam folders
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 03:42 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen and the
next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here, I learned that
some people use tmda as a part of their spam defense, and looking into
it I soon learned that
TMDA
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:56:03AM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
| On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:53:49AM -0700, Steve C. Lamb said
| On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
| Hm, now I check, 27253 of those did *not* come from my secondary MXs.
| That is a stupid amount of crap. In
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:20:46AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| If you have the level of MTA control neccessary to automatically reply
| to CR queries, then just block Swen at the MTA level. I've rejected
|
Rob Weir writes:
Ah, yes, that's even worse. I'm also bloody sick of getting a virus was
detected in your mail messages from people I have never written to.
Or A virus was detected and removed from this message to you followed
by instructions on how to retrieve the virus and the cleaned Swen.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:31:50AM -0700, Tom said
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:41AM +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
Yup. Reason #23131 why CR is a poor solution. I'm quite amazed at how
well SA and simple checks like my Postfix body regexp work. I still get
spam, and oodles of it, but it's
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, John Hasler wrote:
Or A virus was detected and removed from this message to you followed
by instructions on how to retrieve the virus and the cleaned Swen.
How about the ones that have something to the effect of Scan engine
failure, unable to scan that let you know just
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 08:49:09AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
I've got a simple pre-fetchmail script that deletes any emails
larger than 13 bytes while still sitting on the pop server.
Once in a while something happens that makes hours of wading
through a thread worthwhile. Where can one
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 17:43 GMT, Rob Weir penned:
This is a good point, but it's not something I notice anymore. I scan
through my lists and hit y on any spam in mutt; it passes the mail
to sa-learn --spam and moves it to my spam folder. About the only
thing I see anymore in the Debian
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:11, David Jardine wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 08:49:09AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
I've got a simple pre-fetchmail script that deletes any emails
larger than 13 bytes while still sitting on the pop server.
Once in a while something happens that makes
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:30:42AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen
and the next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here,
I learned that some
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:41:44AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 03:42 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen and the
next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here, I learned that
some people use tmda as a part
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 22:32 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
Yes. My formula is an oversimplification of the real world. My excuse
is that a visit to the TMDA web page gives the impression that the
formula is valid, and might reasonably be expected to suck innocent
readers into using something
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:21:49PM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:30:42AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- Any autoresponder is an invitation to abuse from the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:57:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman said
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 17:43 GMT, Rob Weir penned:
This is a good point, but it's not something I notice anymore. I scan
through my lists and hit y on any spam in mutt; it passes the mail
to sa-learn --spam and moves it to
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:17:39PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 22:32 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
Yes. My formula is an oversimplification of the real world. My excuse
is that a visit to the TMDA web page gives the impression that the
formula
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 03:10 GMT, Rob Weir penned:
--PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:57:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman said
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 17:43 GMT, Rob
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 03:48 GMT, Karsten M. Self penned:
--wNT7VBaN1rUIB9jO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:17:39PM -0600, Monique Y. Herman
([EMAIL PROTECTED] osh.org) wrote:
on Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 03:43:46AM +1000, Rob Weir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is a good point, but it's not something I notice anymore. I scan
through my lists and hit y on any spam in mutt; it passes the mail to
sa-learn --spam and moves it to my spam folder. About the only thing
I
I've been looking at a lot of options for dealing with Swen
and the next Sobig, soon to arrive. In the discussions here,
I learned that some people use tmda as a part of their spam
defense, and looking into it I soon learned that
TMDA == C/R
I had already heard that C/R is a bad thing, but I
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:42:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
[ Snip autoresponding idea to C/R ]
What is the downside of doing this? Am I crazy?
http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html
Points 0 and 8 should answer your question though the entire essay is
worth a read.
34 matches
Mail list logo
