Hello,
Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
header of mail?
Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW: Javascript to hide URLs in browser * 1.3
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda
* Linda Walsh sa-u...@tlinx.org:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Sloppy language is sloppy language everywhere! I took offense in the message,
too and I am neither American nor am I from the UK.
But what annoys me the most is
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
People -- these standards of 'crude language' really need to be strongly
held 'in check' -- the US is 'supposed' to be
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same
data in
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:40 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
I'm sure that is mostly it, Linda. They don't seem to 'get' it.
Two things I observe in this whole 'barracuda-gate' posting;
1. Being
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a
On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
header of mail?
Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:04, Henrik Kh...@hege.li wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
or
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these
2009/8/1 Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk:
On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
header of mail?
Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts
On 01.08.09 07:01, router backup wrote:
Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
header of mail?
Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW:
So what makes a spammer want to use a valid email address as a return or
reply-to address to catch all the undeliverable, failure and bounced email that
occures when sending UBE spam.
Is there some legitimacy with spam detection on an email that contains a valid
reply-to email address?
To
I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain Real-World-Systems.com
as the from: and the return-path: .
Received-From-MTA: dns;triband-mum-59.184.51.13.mtnl.net.in
I have sent a message to
Is there a directive to change the way X-Spam-Report formats in the
header of mail?
Currently I get a single X-Spam-Report line wrapped;
X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via
SMTP * 2.2 HIDE_WIN_STATUS RAW: Javascript to hide URLs in browser *
Awesome,
just received a German spam, obviously *trying* to advertise a porn
site. The way they blew up really made me laugh -- loud. :)
Im World Wide Web unter www.example.com kannst du dir
alles ansehen, dabei deinen Schw[...]
Yes, they really did use *that* URI. Identified spam, all I'm
I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain Real-World-Systems.com
as the from: and the return-path: .
Received-From-MTA: dns;triband-mum-59.184.51.13.mtnl.net.in
I have sent a message to
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:56 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
It's not about words on their own -- it's about how they are
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
...I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have to
click on each email in a thread to read its content.
This caught my eye, and I wonder if there may be a correlation to
user preference.
I avoid using the mouse wherever possible,
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
I have received many emails in the last hour which were
undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain
Real-World-Systems.com as the from: and the return-path: .
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
I have received many emails in the last hour which were
undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in my domain
Real-World-Systems.com as the from: and the return-path: .
On Sat, August 1, 2009 14:19, Dennis German wrote:
I have received many emails in the last hour which were undeliverable,
NOT sent by me.
backscattering, block this ip, and send a mail to the postmaster, whois ip
might say what email
there system accept non existsing users, or some other
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:04:35 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
I have received many emails in the last hour which were
undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames in
Per Jessen wrote:
Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's exactly the same technology. (I
haven't done in exhaustive tests though).
Supposedly 'Very' different (I hope)...
1) You can't turn it off in the BIOS
2) claim of benefit from increased cache (FALSE),
(have older 2x2 Dual
Um, Linda.. I'm pretty positive Justin is Irish, not American.
Linda Walsh wrote:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009
twofers a écrit :
So what makes a spammer want to use a valid email address as a return or
reply-to address to catch all the undeliverable, failure and bounced
email that occures when sending UBE spam.
this is to beat those who use sender verification/sender
callout/(whatever you name it).
Hello, I found out the following information:
my SPAMD daemon is running under root. But I have in master.cf(postfix
configuration file) the following lines:
Postfix master process configuration file. For details on the format
# of the file, see the master(5) manual page (command: man 5 master).
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:10 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
Hi I need help with antispam. I use spamassassin with razor. And when I test
spamassassin --lint -D razor2 then I get result that razor2 : test local
only, skipping razor. I need test razor in connection to the internet. I
dont
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:04:35 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
I have received many emails in the last hour which were
undeliverable, NOT sent by me.
It seems someone is forging usernames
I tried it without --lint just spamassassin --lint -D razor2 so the
command line freeze(dont work).
When I use spamassassin -t -D razor2 /tmp/spam
so I dont get the hash and so on but content analysis details...bayes
clasification and so on. I expected message like :
debug: Razor is
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:13 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
And the last problem: When I get mail with sign autolearn=ham so I tried
type sa-learn --spam --file mail. When I got the same mail so spamassassin
mark the mail again autolearn=ham. How is it possible when I learn bayes by
Back on-list. I'm not a personal help-line.
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:40 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote privately:
I tried it without --lint just spamassassin --lint -D razor2 so the
^^^^
You did not.
command line freeze(dont work).
Or
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is on
a number of RBLs.
It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the backscatter
doesn't come from there, it comes from the recipients of
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is on
a number of RBLs.
It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the backscatter
doesn't come from there, it comes from the recipients
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:42:21 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 16:13 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
And the last problem: When I get mail with sign autolearn=ham so I
tried type sa-learn --spam --file mail. When I got the same mail so
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 20:44:27 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is
on a number of RBLs.
It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's
I have tried adding the appropriate lines, which I believe should be
score DCC_CHECK 5.0 if I want all emails which pass the DCC-Check
to get 5 points. Unfortunately this is not working, neither for DCC
nor for Razor.
Yes, that should do it.
Evidence that it's not working? Show us some SA
score RAZOR2_CECK 5.0
Yes, I have seen my mistake (after sending the email). But the problem with
DCC persists and in that case I was even able to spell a simple
three-word-rule correctly. I am going to post another example with DCC as
soon as possible.
Bye
Stefan
--
View this message in
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:34:04 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
Of course it's blacklisted, but would you care to explain how
rejecting mail from 59.184.51.13 helps, when the backscatter
doesn't come from there?
According to the OP, that's the IP he received the message
On 1-Aug-2009, at 06:14, twofers wrote:
Any ideas on preventing or minimizing this type of spam?
Yep, I reduced the number of emails being processed on my mail server
by about 40% by enabling a backscatter RBL.
postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
reject_unauth_pipelining,
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:34:34PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
That reminds me, gotta test how SA runs on a Sun T5240 with 16 core 128
cores..
Well not that impressive for SA, price/speed wise..
T2+ 2x8x1.4Ghz, 144 msgs/sec @ 128 processes
AMD X4 4x3Ghz, 43 msgs/sec @ 4 processes
Note that this
43 matches
Mail list logo
