Good Morning Marc,
Am 2009-08-06 15:37:46, schrieb Marc Perkel:
This might be an advanced concept for you but what I meant was -
deliberately send spam. Everyone doing sender verification is someone
who is trying to BLOCK spam, and therefore are the good guys. I also
track SAV calls and
On 5-Aug-2009, at 10:53, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:35, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 3-Aug-2009, at 18:36, Dennis G German wrote:
Is Backscatter.org http://www.backscatterer.org/index.php
On 5-Aug-2009, at 11:33, spamassas...@nro.ca wrote:
If anyone has an example config for sendmail to use the backscatter
rbl at
smtp time please send it. I take a beating from backscatterers.
This is what I do in postfix. Perhaps you can adapt it?
main.cf:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've read the sender callouts page and I don't see any evidence that it
mentions the SAV problem.
On 07.08.09 15:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
I went to the front page, and then clicked Sender Callouts ... The
very first line says:
Sendercallouts (Sender Verify /
Nix wrote:
On 1 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh stated:
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)...
Oh yes. I have a P4 here (2GHz Northwood), and two Nehalems
Chris wrote:
I sent a spam report to abuse and postmaster at webexmailer.com last
night. This morning I received this failure message for both abuse and
postmaster:
Unable to deliver message to the following recipients, because the
message was forwarded more than the maximum allowed times. This
* LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 5-Aug-2009, at 11:33, spamassas...@nro.ca wrote:
If anyone has an example config for sendmail to use the backscatter
rbl at
smtp time please send it. I take a beating from backscatterers.
This is what I do in postfix. Perhaps you can adapt it?
main.cf:
[This is really OT for spamassassin, isn't it? Should we take it
off-list?]
On 8 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh spake thusly:
That's w/8 hard disks inside (though not under load...just spinning).
OK, you've out-RAIDed me.
Seems to be no way on my machine (Dell is so limiting sometimes), to
turn off
On 8 Aug 2009, Per Jessen told this:
Nix wrote:
On 1 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh stated:
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)...
Oh yes. I have a P4 here (2GHz
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 5-Aug-2009, at 10:53, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:35, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 3-Aug-2009, at 18:36, Dennis G German wrote:
Is Backscatter.org
Per Jessen wrote:
But how about the core subject here - the hyperthreading? Have you
noticed anything very different wrt that? I haven't, but it will
certainly depend on your workload.
Definitely will depend on workload. But I noticed more power
consumption and it seemed to
I have an entry in a what I call my-whitelist.cf
in /etc/mail/spamassassin:
whitelist_from_rcvd blackwell_...@yahoo.com yahoo.com
If I run a message from this person with spamassassin -D -t msg
shouldn't I get a hit on USER_IN_WHITELIST or not?
Also, I'm still not sure I have my
Nix wrote:
[This is really OT for spamassassin, isn't it? Should we take it
off-list?]
--
a bit -- and somewhat not. Much of it boils down to speed. How to best do
it, parallelism, new hardware features...lowering latency...etc.
I'd really hoped to speed up my SA processing -- at least it
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
any ISP that relays for non customers, needs a kicking. (hosting excluded)
do you mean they will only allow their users relaying through their
Correct, only relay for your own customers based on your own IP ranges,
pretty much removes
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses, but not
from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already discussed
here - you are going the wrong way.
Not bad for me, we used to do this, it only got us
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Res wrote:
this assumes the ISP enables submission,
If an ISP doesn't enable submission then walk away and find a real ISP that
What rubbish
cares about it's customers. Seriously, no port 587 = no customer. If you
WOW
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
anything, just not block the port. ISP's block outgoing port 25 to
Wrong, postfix by default does not use 587, and AFAIK Qmail doesnt either.
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:10:01 -0500
Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
I have an entry in a what I call my-whitelist.cf
in /etc/mail/spamassassin:
whitelist_from_rcvd blackwell_...@yahoo.com yahoo.com
If I run a message from this person with spamassassin -D -t msg
shouldn't I get a hit
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:36:25 +1000 (EST)
Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
anything, just not block the port. ISP's block outgoing port 25 to
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 00:56 +0100, RW wrote:
The trouble with whitelist_from_rcvd is that it relies on the MX server
recording reverse DNS - most do, some don't.
Also, I'm still not sure I have my trusted_networks setting correct. I
have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 00:56 +0100, RW wrote:
Also, I'm still not sure I have my trusted_networks setting correct. I
have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks 192.168/16 71.48.160.0/20 71.54.96/19
Here is a line of Received: from headers from a test mail to myself:
Received:
On 8-Aug-2009, at 17:30, Res wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Res wrote:
this assumes the ISP enables submission,
If an ISP doesn't enable submission then walk away and find a real
ISP that
What rubbish
cares about it's customers. Seriously, no port
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:36:25 +1000 (EST)
Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
anything, just not block the port. ISP's
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, LuKreme wrote:
Well, you have a very nice fsck-you attitude toward your own customers which
I find appalling. If I am at a coffee shop, or at a friends house, and I
can't sent mail out because my ISP only allows connections from their own IP
pool then yeah, I will walk
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still looking
for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I was thinking
a mailbox such as h...@antispamserver and s...@antispamserver to let users to
forward their false
25 matches
Mail list logo
