On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 8:54 AM Larry Smith via mailop
wrote:
> Hmmm, so are these simply connections this filter is blocking
> or verifiable (high probability of spam source) spam connections?
>
Spam. Of course.
> From the conversation it seems mom and pop's are the ones losing
>
"seems" i
On Fri July 14 2023 09:26, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:46 AM Thomas Mechtersheimer via mailop <
>
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> > Do you have any numbers that suggest that this specific method does
> > filter a significant amount of spam which other filters would no
On 7/14/23 9:26 AM, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
Yes, of course. We wouldn't do it otherwise. It's billions. And it kept
getting worse.
Can ~> will you share any rough (as in order of magnitude / log10)
numbers? -- If so, please do.
One of the things that I find so confusing about this
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:46 AM Thomas Mechtersheimer via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Do you have any numbers that suggest that this specific method does filter
> a significant amount of spam which other filters would not recognise?
>
Yes, of course. We wouldn't do it otherwise. It's
In message <56b83491-6441-4d1e-a3ef-008da3311...@slavino.sk>, Slavko via
mailop writes
>When spammers are able to create proper DNS records directly used
>in email authentification, what problem will be the SOA record for them?
In order to have a domain with an SOA record they have to purchase a
Dňa 14. júla 2023 7:16:43 UTC používateľ Thomas Mechtersheimer via mailop
napísal:
>I guess he means filtering based solely on the existance of a SOA record.
Of course, that is what this thread about... Thanks to clarify behind me ;-)
>Do you have any numbers that suggest that this specific me
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:31:48AM -0700, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:19 AM Slavko via mailop
> wrote:
> > Would not be more effective to not use technique prone to false
> > positives? For both sides...
>
> So you mean not trying to filter spam or fight spammers
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:19 AM Slavko via mailop
wrote:
>
> Would not be more effective to not use technique prone to false
> positives? For both sides...
>
So you mean not trying to filter spam or fight spammers at all? I have not
seen a solution which doesn't produce false positives.
___
Dňa 13. júla 2023 17:41:51 UTC používateľ Marcel Becker via mailop
napísal:
>On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
>mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I still think this is a check that's prone to false positives
>>
>
>Or other issues. Yes. That's why we are also helping wh
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> I still think this is a check that's prone to false positives
>
Or other issues. Yes. That's why we are also helping where we can when
folks reach out to us.
-- Marcel
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
>
> It is worth noting that this is in no way a "standard" or even a
> widely-known "best practice"
>
Nobody has claimed that.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org
On 2023-07-13 at 10:15:27 UTC-0400 (Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:15:27 -0700)
Marcel Becker via mailop
is rumored to have said:
No. I might as well reveal the actual domain names involved, since
it's
not particularly secret: it's "westfir.or.us" and "ci.westfir.or.us".
It's actually not that compl
>
>
> No. I might as well reveal the actual domain names involved, since it's
> not particularly secret: it's "westfir.or.us" and "ci.westfir.or.us".
>
>
It's actually not that complicated. We want to see an SOA record for either
the domain OR the organizational domain.
We use the PSL to determine
13 matches
Mail list logo
