rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
>> > iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>>
>> Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
>>
>> Alex
>
> NO NO NO NO NO!
> Drop has the effect of tarpitting them :-)
Not quite, tarpitting is
Hi,
> not relevant to Spamassassin, is it?
>
> if you have to go way off topic at pleas be considerat and add an OT: tag to
> the subject.. > /dev/null
>
> or try: http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo
Yes, very much OT. I was following along with the other iptables comments.
Thanks for the point
On 11/25/2009 11:29 PM, Alex wrote:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
Very good. That was nearly funny :-) Why don't you add:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 0.0.0.0/0 -j DROP and enjoy the silence :-)
Trouble is that you have to be the one that drives to the colo to
eventually undo the rul
>> iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>>
> Very good. That was nearly funny :-) Why don't you add:
> iptables -A FIREWALL -s 0.0.0.0/0 -j DROP and enjoy the silence :-)
Trouble is that you have to be the one that drives to the colo to
eventually undo the rules :-)
Speaking of fw rules, h
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
here. What's a more reasona
Alex pisze:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. Only thing it seems to care
about is the money for 'expr
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:04 -0500, Alex wrote:
> > iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>
> Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
>
> Alex
NO NO NO NO NO!
Drop has the effect of tarpitting them :-) As the Supremes sang;
"Set me free why don't you baby? You just k
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 19:20 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On ons 25 nov 2009 18:55:11 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Any more ranges most welcome :-)
>
> iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
>
Very good. That was nearly funny :-) Why don't you add:
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 0.0.0.0
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:49 PM, R-Elists wrote:
>
>
> umm side note, i spose to Tara...
>
> is Constant Contact like the default email marketing system (or one of
> them)
> for salesforce.com or whatever other large "online" customer management
> software??? or do you own them or they own you or
Hi Rick,
Thanks for your answer.
So for these cases as could do to work whitelists?
It can be solution in spamassassin or simscan?
Thanks
Jose Luis
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:23:02 -0500
> From: ri...@ummm-beer.com
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with whitelists
> iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
Nah, use REJECT so you get that immediate satisfaction :-)
Alex
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 10:53 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> > of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> > lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
>
> Alex,
>
> we use all 3 and adjust
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how
> it works here. What's a more reaso
>
> uri LOCAL_URI_C_CONTACT m{constantcontact\.com\b}
> score LOCAL_URI_C_CONTACT 12
> describe LOCAL_URI_C_CONTACT contains link to
> constant contact [dot] com
>
thanks Ned,
i do have a coupla companies that use CC for email so i wont totally whack.
they
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
here. What's a more reasonable score? I d
thanks Tara, not the hugest biggie...
yet since we are only on a few select lists and use this email address, i
figured several others on this list were getting it too
i did forward both to abuse at your site with headers
happy gobble gobble everyone!
- rh
I've got Compliance on it alre
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
Dear Sirs
I noticed a problem with Spamassassin whitelists and Simscan:
Spamassassin is configured to use white lists using mysql (for example)
*mysql> select * from userpref;
+--++-++
| us
On ons 25 nov 2009 18:55:11 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
Any more ranges most welcome :-)
iptables -A FIREWALL -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP
--
xpoint
Dear Sirs
I noticed a problem with Spamassassin whitelists and Simscan:
Spamassassin is configured to use white lists using mysql (for example)
mysql> select * from userpref;
+--++-++
| username | pr
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 17:34 +, Ned Slider wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> R-Elists wrote:
> >>>
> >>> on a much more important note, can those on the list that have a good
> >>> handle
> >>> on better filtering spam and/or UCE from Const
Am 2009-11-25 00:23:34, schrieb LuKreme:
> I get HABEAS mail sent to email addresses that have not been active in
> 10 years and have never EVER signed up for anything whatsoever. I get
> HABEAS mail sent to new admin@ email addresses on new domains, domains
> that have never sent any email at all.
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
R-Elists wrote:
on a much more important note, can those on the list that have a good
handle
on better filtering spam and/or UCE from Constant please share your SA
info
on that please?
Here's mine:
uri LOCAL
Am 2009-11-24 17:23:29, schrieb Jeff Mincy:
> I find it a little hard to believe that your spam is so much different from
> my spam. On my mail, not one single spam message (out of 228k total) hit
> HABEAS for all of 2009. The few messages (480 out of 11k) that hit HABEAS
> were all ham, either p
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> R-Elists wrote:
>>
>> just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on
>> our
>> "email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
>>
>> obviously trolling for email addresses
>>
>> would the Constant Contact
Am 2009-11-23 17:08:11, schrieb LuKreme:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
>
> We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
> indicator of spam. It does not appear in legitimate
Is it possible to create a custom rule that looks at the charset= string
in the Content-Type header?
We're getting a lot of Chinese language spam here at the moment
(charset="gb2312") and they're only scoring in about a 6.3, but I'd like
to push that slightly higher. I'm thinking that the pro
R-Elists wrote:
just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on our
"email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
obviously trolling for email addresses
would the Constant Contact employee(s) and advocate on this list please kick
some hiney after you ar
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM, R-Elists wrote:
>
>
> just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on our
> "email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
>
> obviously trolling for email addresses
>
> would the Constant Contact employee(s) and advocate o
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> R-Elists wrote:
>> on a much more important note, can those on the list that have a good handle
>> on better filtering spam and/or UCE from Constant please share your SA info
>> on that please?
>>
> header CONSTANTCONTACT List-Unsubscribe
R-Elists wrote:
just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on our
"email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
obviously trolling for email addresses
would the Constant Contact employee(s) and advocate on this list please kick
some hiney after you are
On 25.11.09 03:23, jdow wrote:
> Having a little help might help them maintain a better product.
> But (that bitter word), the basic concept is broken. If the spammer
> can make more money than it costs to get on the Habeas whitelist
> then they will pull the same trick I've seen here in California
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>> I'm not saying that companies registered in habeas do not spam.
>> I'm saying that those who do should be reported, which could make
>> habeas
>> worth using.
On 25.11.09 03:16, LuKreme wrote:
> Ah, well that's a whole other issue
just got spammed via constant contact via Aloha Communications Group on our
"email lists" email address from afrit...@aloha-com.ccsend.com
obviously trolling for email addresses
would the Constant Contact employee(s) and advocate on this list please kick
some hiney after you are done rolling ar
> From: Hajdú Zoltán wrote
>
> Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
>
> If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against
> a ~good concept...
> ...Maybe it would be a better idea to spend that time on
> supporting them with Your feedback.
>
> Cheers,
Hajdu,
we
From: "Per Jessen"
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/November/25 03:03
Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
LuKreme írta:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
I'm not saying that companies registered in habeas do not spam.
I'm saying that those who do should be reported, which could make
habeas wor
On 25-Nov-2009, at 03:57, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> Then whos job?
The people who are making money from the Habeas list, of course.
> Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
Nope, they just claim that spammers flooding my inbox should be 'trusted'
> If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' a
I'm sure they monitor them in various ways, but there could be exceptions (there is no absolutely perfect solution for this problem) - and
the blue pill for that is called feedback.
Per Jessen írta:
Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
LuKreme írta:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> LuKreme írta:
>> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not saying that companies registered in habeas do not spam.
>>> I'm saying that those who do should be reported, which could make
>>> habeas worth using.
>>
>> Ah, well that's a whole ot
Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good concept...
...Maybe it would be a better idea to spend that time on supporting them with
Your feedback.
Cheers,
LuKreme írta:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fanto
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
I'm not saying that companies registered in habeas do not spam.
I'm saying that those who do should be reported, which could make
habeas
worth using.
Ah, well that's a whole other issue. Habeas is a commercial enterprise
and I don
On 25.11.09 07:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> A good marketing company would *not* require a whitellist, as their mail
> would be fully compliant, score low and come from an IP with a good
> reputation. If spammers can tick these boxes, a paid for ESP should have
> no difficulty *without* the
On 11/25/2009 3:56 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
that's normal. can be ignored
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 21:04, Yet Another Ninja
wrote:
When running masscheck calling:
/home/mc/masscheck/spamassassin/trunk/masses && nice ./mass-check \
--cf='loadplugin
43 matches
Mail list logo
