On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 10:44, Matt Kettler wrote:
> What did you want to dissociate them for anyway?
Doing this would allow receipt time (single) scanning of mail along with
per-user decisions as to whether to accept/reject/markup the mail.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Methering
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 01:56, Chris Paul wrote:
> You should call me. I'm starting a company that will eliminate spam
> for good. Not just filter it. Filtration won't scale. We'll be
> eliminating spam for good.
I guess you have a decent source of ICBMs then - and probably a bulk
deal on hitmen.
>
if there was a zero score.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcom
a test as zero inhibits the test being run at all,
so your point is not an issue. So changing the scoring of the test is
the minimum change to knock out use of osirusoft and is also restricting
edits to the normal SA configuration rather than making changes to the
packaged rule files.
Nigel
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 15:33, Mike Burger wrote:
> Great...now, I just need to figure out how to redirect the output.
> "strace -p > strace.txt" didn't work.
strace -p -o strace.txt
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this messag
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We need a prounouncability test of the sender addresses. If it has a bunch
> of ixf38jk3 crud in it, it is more likely to be spam.
/me points and laughs at lds0062
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PRO
pam.
The mailing list machine I manage has had a 4 fold increase in spam
hitting the mailing list moderation interface over the last few days.
Its gone way past being funny.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not I
then whoever wants the benefit
> of SpamAssassin can put in rules for the X-Spam-Flag.
Yeah - thats about it.
exiscan looks well worth trying (I have it running here now) - the MIME
file extension handling is useful in these days of Bugbear etc, without
running a real virus checker.
Nigel
backstaging for
the Musical "Assassins" -
http://www.imagi-nation.com/moonstruck/albm80.html ]
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opin
er for exim so that the
reinject works OK). Its pretty hard to get exim to run things as root.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
hing, but its cheap
(money and MTA resources) and suprisingly effective against things like
Melissa (if I had 1% of the money saved by some ISPs by that filter
during the Melissa and its successors storms I would be writing this
from my state-of-the-art wireless networked laptop whilst sipping a cold
ately) be <> and people may have fun trying to craft
shell expansion sensitive addresses with security implications).
Personally, with exim, I used BSMTP to preserve the envelope and invoke
spamc as a transport filter.
I think procmail is likely to be the wrong solution here.
Nigel.
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 12:13, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 01:50, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> > I've not played with this since a 2.0 linux kernel, however on that if
> > you have the transparent proxy code in place - which *terminates* the
> > connection (
) folks at the previously monopoly telco in the UK]
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://li
ng, as were 100+ attempted mail bomb/abuse runs.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 20:52, Adrian Phillips wrote:
> >>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Metheringham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes:
>
>
> Interesting, I though I'd give it a go.
>
> Nigel> I've just been playing with the exim spamassass
:-))
condition = "${if and { {!def:h_X-Spam-Flag:} {!eq
{$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}}} {1}{0}}"
driver = smartuser
transport = spamcheck
One other subtle point. Your spamd must have the "-F 0" flag added to
stop it adding and messing around with Fr
For whatever reason I'm now getting Brasilian spam...
Looks to me as though the last paragraph - I assume its quoting some
spam friendly statute - could have some good things to match on.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 8
_SPAM_MAILER_1-10.0
> score NON_SPAM_MAILER_2-10.0
I can see the idea you are working on, but -10 seems a huge weighting
for this rule (ie twice the default spam threshold).
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85
ve to work round
the list brokenness.
Want a longer rant - see
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
BTW some people don't agree with this. Unfortunately that just makes
them wrong.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85
he scoring if pairs of rules match would be nice.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
___
to the razor database and for while last
week this happened to the razor list itself.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy
velope-To".
Actually any header additions/deletions in exim take place at transport
(ie final delivery from the point of view of the MTA) time. What might
confuse this a little is SA is often called as a final delivery, which
happens to reinject mail into the system afterwards.
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 14:45, dman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:37:46AM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> | In terms of headers, Return-Path: would be the one to go for.
>
> Well, in your message that I'm replying to, there is no Return-Path:
> header. Maybe procma
o
be easy - especially the . escaping.
In terms of headers, Return-Path: would be the one to go for.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opini
> What can I do against this?
Sue.
Its forgery and defamation surely, and you are the victim in this case.
If a few people manage to sue spammers for this it will rapidly become
an unpopular technique.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phon
running RBL at the MTA level a while back as things break
quickly when people do strange things like ORBS]
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and
happening on a machine on my internal network
having been relayed in from the outside the envelope recipient will look
like [EMAIL PROTECTED] where tags is a representation of the
original envelope recipient local and domain parts.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTE
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL P
ctly deliver to Maildir format.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 85 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
___
Sp
30 matches
Mail list logo
