Hi,
> You know how it is unsafe to use unsubscribe on many spam because that you
> are a live address?
Of course. If you read again, I'm talking about sites like eWeek.com,
where someone has intentionally subscribed, but can't figure out how
to unsubscribe, so they think if they just treat it as
On 11/10/2009 10:59 PM, Alex wrote:
This just becomes increasingly important when management drops an
email in the "Put Spam Here" folder for training that clearly isn't
spam, but something they've subscribed to, like a newsletter. For the
email that even I question sometimes, I'd like to be abl
Hi,
>> for both JMF_W
>> (HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message.
>
> I'm not involved in the management of either of these, but I have some
> analysis which I think is accurate:
Rob, thanks, I think you've hit the nail on the head on all counts.
That's what the spam race is all about -
Hi,
I'm getting alot of this new Google document link spam recently.
Below is an example:
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: fc...@molsci.org
Received: (qmail 11025 invoked by uid 501); 10 Nov 2009 16:55:53 -0800
Received: from 87.217.186.215 by s1.molsci.org (envelope-from
, uid 509) with qmail-scan
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! Your earlier Regex is in place and doing quite well.
Pleased to be of service.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>>
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> email address
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Benny Pedersen :
>> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
>>> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
>>> old gas.
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubsc
some centos people are having a pub party and the "kings and queens" in
london
it might be over already based upon time difference from usa
maybe all of you could go there and drink beer and duke it out or something
constructive
;->
- rh
* John Hardin :
> In that case, depending on the MTA logging, perhaps he could still
> disable catchall and then troll the logs to see which invalid
> addresses were attempted.
Or block tke mail to any recipient starting with "|"
In postfix that could be done with
check_recipient_access regexp:/
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of
my spam is this ).
That's no
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> Ralf's question was in no way offensive. He is just trying to solve the
> problem by way that is most efficient for most of e-mail users and admins.
What the OP intends to do ("Who's selling away my addresses?") can be
done in the MTA entirely. A colleague at tu-bs.de
* Benny Pedersen :
> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> >Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> >old gas.
>
> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> his answers just unsubscribe
Good point, but richar
* rich...@buzzhost.co.uk :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> > > email
> > > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this
> > > ).
> >
if I reply to the mailing list and not you directly, you should reply to
the mailing list.
Original Message
Subject:Re: Getting off the "Cloudmark" formerly "spamnet" blacklist
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:25:20 -0800
From: Ted Mittelstaedt
Organization: Interne
From:
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/November/10 09:14
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubscribe
>>
> Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> nobody at all and makes
From:
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/November/10 08:27
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> old gas.
imho Ralf have never being banned in mailli
Alex wrote:
> for both JMF_W
> (HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message.
I'm not involved in the management of either of these, but I have some
analysis which I think is accurate:
(1) Marc Perkel's domain whitelist is auto-generated. This has many
advantages... but one disadvantage is th
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Rather than let this drift into a hijacked free-for-all perhaps one of
the guru's of REGEX here would actually like to answer the OP's
question.
If you hadn't gotten distracted by your multiple nemeses you would have
noticed I've done so. :)
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> >> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> >> his answers just unsubscribe
> >>
> > Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> > nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially whe
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> > > email
> > > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this
> > > ).
> >
> > That's not needed. Wh
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
>>>
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
> for email addres
>> I sometimes welcome the terse replies; it illicit's clarification from the
>> OP.
>
> ITYM "elicits".
Heh, yes, thanks. I don't think they're involved in some illicit sex scandal :-)
In either case, the apostrophe was wrong, too. Working on getting a
new toolchain compiled and working straight
On 10-Nov-2009, at 08:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I would presume, knowing Comcast, and knowing the average ability
> of the typical Comcast e-mail user, that the razor-report and
> rezor-revoke is being done silently, automatically, behind the
> scenes. Perhaps when a user pulls a message out o
On 10-Nov-2009, at 09:27, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
>>> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
>>> old gas.
>>
>> imho Ralf have never b
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Alex wrote:
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just unsubscribe
Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially when the
answer is mere opinion.
Hi,
>> (how can a mail
>> server be whitelisted while the message body contains a blacklisted
>> URL?)
>
> Pretty trivially; if spam with a blacklisted URI is forwarded from an
> account handled by a trusted server, the final recipient will see both a
> whitelisted/trusted relay and a blacklisted
Oh, come now; like calling Comcast is going to get you anywhere. Per:
http://www.spamresource.com/2009/10/top-five-tips-for-dealing-with.html
I've had success with Comcast. Been good to me.
Generic Abuse: http://postmaster.comcast.net/
Personally, I'd fill out Comcast's form at:
http://www.comc
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM, John Hardin wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my
spam is this ).
Richard,
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubscribe
>>
> Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially when the
> answer is mere opinion.
I sometimes welcome the
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> > old gas.
>
> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> his answer
Alex wrote:
(how can a mail
server be whitelisted while the message body contains a blacklisted
URL?)
Pretty trivially; if spam with a blacklisted URI is forwarded from an
account handled by a trusted server, the final recipient will see both a
whitelisted/trusted relay and a blacklisted URI
On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
old gas.
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just unsubscribe
--
xpoint
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
...omissis...
How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
are the ones that run this.
Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
are the ones that run this.
Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being marked
spam are comcast e-mail users. We a
> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> ...omissis...
>
> How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
> who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
> are the ones that run this.
>
> Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being marked
> sp
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:51 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hi All,
We have a customer who had a compromised mailserver, they fixed the
server but are apparently still blacklisted by this company called
"CloudMark (www.cloudmark.com) that Comcast uses.
In Googl
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
> > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
>
> That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail t
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of
my spam is this ).
That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail to NON-EXISTING
recipie
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
> addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail to NON-EXISTING
recipients at all?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbe
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
What I have so far is this;
[^a-z0-9]\b[a-z0-9._%+...@[a-z0-9.-]+\.[a-z]{2,4}\b
To me that looks right but its not hitting. Any other suggestio
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:51 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>We have a customer who had a compromised mailserver, they fixed the
> server but are apparently still blacklisted by this company called
> "CloudMark (www.cloudmark.com) that Comcast uses.
>
>In Googling around I se
41 matches
Mail list logo
