On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST), Res wrote:
> for our customers, I dont care what other companies like that do, they
can
> accept mail on port 80 for all I care.
newer used webmail ?
--
Benny Pedersen
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:16:53 -0400, Dan Schaefer
wrote:
>>> Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the
>>> subject? I have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
>>> http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
>>
>> freemail plugin http://sa.hege.li/
>>
> It looks as if the F
There is one rule, Ted. "If you modify a rule and break it, you get to
keep the pieces."
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt"
Sent: Thursday, 2009/August/20 17:25
Dave wrote:
Hi,
Thanks. If the sare rules work great, is it standard practice to use
them and they catch
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
>
> > Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> > sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> > understand.
>
> I know exactly what your saying,
You clear
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:29 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 00:24 +0200, mouss wrote:
> > at a time where we search for complex obfuscations, you think we are
> > silly to use rules that only match 1 space?
>
> besides, unless you use a rawbody rule, the text regularization wou
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
understand.
I know exactly what your saying, its you it seems who cant comprehend what
I'm saying
Are you not aware that t
On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 00:24 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Dan Schaefer a écrit :
> > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
> >>
> > That is incorrect. I put double spaces in the subject, because I knew
> > someone would bring that up. :-)
> >
>
> at a t
Gary Smith a écrit :
>> Read the top of the rulesemporium site:
>>
>> http://www.rulesemporium.com/
>>
>> SARE rules aren't being updated. Hence, sa-updating them is pointless.
>
> Is it still recommended to run the SARE rules?
you should use
90_2tld_cf_sare_sa-update_dostech_net
to avoid
Dan Schaefer a écrit :
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject?
>>>
>>
>> Probably not a smart idea, since you insist on re-using that very
>> subject for your list po
Karl Pearson wrote:
On Fri, August 21, 2009 1:41 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Gary Smith wrote:
I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market
and
I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the s
On Fri, August 21, 2009 1:41 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Gary Smith wrote:
>>> I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
>>> companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market
>>> and
>>> I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
Gary Smith wrote:
I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market and
I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
engine market, either.
I don't agree with this "everyone's an ISP" menta
> I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
> companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market and
> I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
> engine market, either.
>
> I don't agree with this "everyone's an ISP" mentality tha
RW wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:27:55 -0700
Gary Smith wrote:
Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
understand.
Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email
services without be
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Dan Schaefer wrote:
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject? I have
4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
I haven't run it through my testbed yet, but...
sought_fraud and the SARE fraud rulesets
> Again, I've no idea what relevance that has to anything I've written.
>
> All I ever said in his thread was that I don't in general rate ISP mail
> very highly, and that if an ISP blocks outgoing connections to port 25
> you can still connect to a third-party server through either the
> submissi
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:27:55 -0700
Gary Smith wrote:
>
> > Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> > sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> > understand.
> >
> > Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email
> > servi
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject?
Probably not a smart idea, since you insist on re-using that very
subject for your list post...
That is incorrect. I put double s
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
> Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject?
Probably not a smart idea, since you insist on re-using that very
subject for your list post...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\x
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:45 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
> > Scored pretty high here. DCC and JMF-BLACK account for quite a bit, but
> > it would have scored 5.0 and been marked as spam even without them.
>
> My required_score is 7.
That's pretty much your local problem, then...
Most scores are n
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 17:35 -0700, Gary Smith wrote:
> Thanks. I used them years ago back before rulesemporium actually
> existed, and I know they had value at the time. I just didn't know if
> the rules were migrated into the mainline or something like that.
> It's been years since I really had
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 02:46 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > All scored the same. Can be written as a single rule.
>
> I've spent some time and tried to refine my rules based on your
> advice, guenther. Can I ask you to check them over again and see if
> this is any better, or at least more inclusive?
The
Scored pretty high here. DCC and JMF-BLACK account for quite a bit, but
it would have scored 5.0 and been marked as spam even without them.
My required_score is 7.
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
Dan Schaefer wrote:
> Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject? I
> have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
> http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
Scored pretty high here. DCC and JMF-BLACK account for quite a bit, but
it would have scored 5.0 and been ma
Please watch your language. This is a public mailing list, and
offensive language here is inappropriate.
--j.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:41, Res wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>> On 09.08.09 09:20, Res wrote:
>>>
>>> Correct, only relay for your own customers base
Dan Schaefer wrote:
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject? I
have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
Similar here, except I get a few hits on extra RBLs, although who knows
if those would have hit at the time o
> Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> understand.
>
> Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email services
> without being ISPs: Google, Fastmail, Tuffmail etc.
>
Just beca
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the
subject? I have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
freemail plugin http://sa.hege.li/
It looks as if the FREEMAIL_BODY is the only rule that works with this
email. The From addres
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 03:00 -0400, MySQL Student wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > mimeheader LOC_CTYP_IMG ((Content-Type =~ /image\/png/) ||
> > (Content-Type =~ /image\/jpg/) || (Content-Type =~ /image\/jpeg/) ||
>
> I thought this passed through my --lint, but I only caught it the
> second time. I was looki
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 02:06:22 PM CEST, Dan Schaefer wrote
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the
subject? I have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
freemail plugin http://sa.hege.li/
--
xpoint
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject? I
have 4 in my inbox this morning with scores no more than 5.
http://pastebin.com/m561b461b
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
On 20-Aug-2009, at 10:51, Marc Muñoz Salvador wrote:
Following Martin Hepworth's instructions, I've pasted source of two e-
mails:
http://pastebin.ca/1536577
You removed far too many headers for anyone to make a meaningful
comparison.
--
Can I borrow your underpants for 10 minutes?
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about inappropriate
language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
I'd agree. Looking at his / her last 10 posts, each of them has at least
one swear in them. It's time for a ban, IMHO.
+1
Polite discussion is useful to everyone
Hi,
> mimeheader LOC_CTYP_IMG ((Content-Type =~ /image\/png/) ||
> (Content-Type =~ /image\/jpg/) || (Content-Type =~ /image\/jpeg/) ||
I thought this passed through my --lint, but I only caught it the
second time. I was looking around for the (new) right way to do it,
and found this in 80_addit
34 matches
Mail list logo
