On 18/01/2007, at 10:18 AM, Phil Scarratt wrote:
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected
due to suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam
box never to be seen.
Except that they d
> -Original Message-
>
> If you don't see any ham with a score above 5, why not set your reject to
> score of 5 or 6?
> IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected due to
> suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam box never to be
> seen.
>
> Cheers,
Alex Samad wrote:
> I thought I had read where this was bad, sending spam through the filter
> multiple times.
You can regard it as bad as running through spam it has seen
before is ignored and doesn't train SA any further. So in
that sense it's a waste.
But in the case of wanting a cron job to
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +1100, Sonia Hamilton wrote:
> * On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:39:03AM +1100, Dean Hamstead wrote:
> > Whatever suits your needs *shrug*, you have the flexibility
> > to do things in a way that suits you.
> >
> > rather than deleting them all, you could just auto de
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:02:44AM +1030, Glen Turner wrote:
> Dean Hamstead wrote:
>
> > in the case of imap email retrieval its even easier, just
> > make 'Junk' folders for everyone, the routinely scan and clear
> > them.
>
> No need to clear them, sa-learn ignores messages it has seen
> befor
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:30AM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
> >This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
> >
> >>IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected due to
> >>suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam box never to be
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:30AM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
> >This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
> >
> >>IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected due to
> >>suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam box never to be
Scott Ragen wrote:
That is unlikely, as spam programs will not bother creating a bounce
message for the originating sender, it would just be a waste of its time.
That's assuming all spammers are using spam programs with built in MTA
Fil
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http:/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 11:49:54 AM:
> This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
>
> > Wheres the spam bounce?
>
> A spammer uses an open relay to deliver his spams. Hey presto, spam
> bounces.
>
As mentioned in the previous email, the same thing would happen if the
recei
* On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:39:03AM +1100, Dean Hamstead wrote:
> Whatever suits your needs *shrug*, you have the flexibility
> to do things in a way that suits you.
>
> rather than deleting them all, you could just auto delete
> emails over a certain age (expire might be a good word).
>
> with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 11:25:39 AM:
>
> About half my junk mail is rejected spam originating from some b*** who
> stole my identity. The "originator" and the "user" are not the same and
I
> don't even want to see these rejections. Fortunately my filters catch
most
> of these b
This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
> Wheres the spam bounce?
A spammer uses an open relay to deliver his spams. Hey presto, spam
bounces.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.rumble.net
"A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should
be done for the first ti
> True it won't get caught in the trap, but in some cases this would
> generate more spam for the "sender" still. There are not that many end
> users who interact at the MTA level. The rejecting MTA refuses to accept
> the mail and tells the sending MTA so, the sending MTA then generates a
> r
Scott Ragen wrote:
Phil Scarratt wrote:
And then people start getting bounced messages for emails they didn't
even send (faked from address) which adds to the spam. IMHO spam should
not be bounced.
Not bounced, rejected. This means the sending mta sends the rejected email
back to the user, s
Scott Ragen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 10:18:30 AM:
And then people start getting bounced messages for emails they didn't
even send (faked from address) which adds to the spam. IMHO spam should
not be bounced.
Not bounced, rejected. This means the sending mta sends the rejec
Whatever suits your needs *shrug*, you have the flexibility
to do things in a way that suits you.
rather than deleting them all, you could just auto delete
emails over a certain age (expire might be a good word).
with mbox this would be interesting, with Maildir
very simple.
Dean
Glen Turner w
Apologies for my sig at the top of the email, I missed it when removing
the cruft at the top of my reply, my reply is at the bottom of the
previous email.
Cheers,
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 10:28:52 AM:
> The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
t
Dean Hamstead wrote:
> in the case of imap email retrieval its even easier, just
> make 'Junk' folders for everyone, the routinely scan and clear
> them.
No need to clear them, sa-learn ignores messages it has seen
before so just send the whole Junk folder through each time.
Then it's up to the
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that
cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go
wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair. -- Douglas Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 10:18:30 AM:
> Rev
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected due to
suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam box never to be
seen.
Except that they don't get that message. Instead they get a long,
c
This one time, at band camp, Scott Ragen wrote:
> IMHO its better for a sender to get "Your Mail has been rejected due to
> suspected spam", then the email getting lost in the spam box never to be
> seen.
Except that they don't get that message. Instead they get a long,
cryptic bounce message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/01/2007 07:11:47 AM:
>
> Hi folks,
>I'm currently seeing around half the incoming emails rejected at
> SMTP conversation time (hurray), with spam scores averaging 21 or so.
> (I play it fairly safe, only scores above 20 get rejected)
>
> The ones that get throug
Here are some thoughts from my own email server, we use exim
to make these rules, spamassassin comes last.
firstly
look for banned 'helo' hosts. ie, 'localhost' '127.0.0.1'
'my.hostname' (as in the hostname of the box)
this rule doesn't stop spam, but it has a measurable impact
and doesnt invol
23 matches
Mail list logo
