Hi,
On Wed, 24.02.2010 at 22:18:04 -0500, alexus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Toni Mueller
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23.02.2010 at 14:08:30 -0500, alexus wrote:
> >> is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
> -bash-3.2# man preline
> No manual entry for preline
> -bash-
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:33 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Jeff Koch wrote:
> >
> > In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
> > enforcement. Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
> >
> > - domain owners are allowing SPF records to be added to their zone
On 24-Feb-10 21:26, Bart Schaefer wrote:
Coincidental to the recent thread on SPF comes this from Terry Zink:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2010/02/23/some-stats-and-figures-on-dkim-and-spf.aspx
The comment is spot on. SPF and DKIM are not anti-spam technologies per
se, they are verified
Coincidental to the recent thread on SPF comes this from Terry Zink:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2010/02/23/some-stats-and-figures-on-dkim-and-spf.aspx
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 14:08 -0500, alexus wrote:
>> is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
>> one more my emails getting spam'd big time...
>> i get nothin' but spam at this email
>> so i'd like to redirect all of that to s
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Toni Mueller
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23.02.2010 at 14:08:30 -0500, alexus wrote:
>> is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
>
> man preline
>
> HTH,
> --Toni++
>
-bash-3.2# man preline
No manual entry for preline
-bash-3.2#
--
http://alexus.org/
On Feb 19, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Jeff Koch wrote:
> The only large ISP that seems to have an FBL friendly approach is AOL. We've
> been on their FBL for years. If anyone knows of another ISP with a friendly
> FBL I'd love to know.
What's your definition of "friendly" in this context?
--
J.D. Falk
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I guess it doesn't really matter since the message was actually hitting
another rule (T_LOTS_OF_MONEY) that I somehow missed.
It also hits some of the testing ADVANCE_FEE_NEW rules. I hope to bring
those live soon...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Wed 24 Feb 2010 05:58:02 PM CET, Kelson wrote
And as people on this list have pointed out 5,000 times, including
myself yesterday:
whitelist_from_spf *...@example.com
def_whitelist_auth *...@example.com
whitelist_auth u...@example.com
freemail_whitelist u...@example.com
this way its
Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:19 +0100
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in
'my networks'.
Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter if you get the mail
via
> > SPF works great as a selective whitelist in SpamAssassin. (And I don't
> > mean whitelisting all SPF passes. That would be stupid. I mean
> > whitelisting mail coming from domain X, but only when it passes SPF
> > and demonstrates that yes, it really came from domain X.)
> >
> > I'd say that wh
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:37:47 -0600
"Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
>
> > It is common in many parts of the world to use a period instead of a
> > comma as a digit group separator, and vice-versa for the decimal
> > separator.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousands_separator#Digit_grouping
> >
>
On Wed, February 24, 2010 2:28 am, Per Jessen wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:18:38 +0100
>> Per Jessen wrote:
>>
>>> LuKreme wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> >> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you
>>> >> specified. The o
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:19 +0100
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
>
> > But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in
> > 'my networks'.
>
> Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter if you get the mail
> via 25 or 58
On 2/23/2010 6:33 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I agree. I've been in the spam filtering business for many years and
have yetto find any use for SPF at all. It's disturbing this useless
technology is getting the false positive support we are seeing.
And as people on this list have pointed out 5,000 ti
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:09:31 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> > Tell you what, wouldn't it be a great idea to save all the messing
> > around and use something universal and simple for the job? Something
> > lightweight and easy to deploy. I know! What about using SPF!
>
> Christian, I suspect we don'
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
> But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in 'my
> networks'.
Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter if you get the mail via
25 or 587. 587 is just a convenience. Any other access to use your server
for
Christian Brel wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:37:49 +0100
> Per Jessen wrote:
>
>> Christian Brel wrote:
>>
>> >> > Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
>> >> > either a different IP or port?
>> >>
>> >> IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on
>>
> > On 23.02.10 16:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you specified.
> >> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
> >> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
It is common in many parts of the world to use a period instead of a
comma as a digit group separator, and vice-versa for the decimal
separator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousands_separator#Digit_grouping
I knew it was common in other parts of the world, but for some reason
was thinkin
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:39:47 +:
> What about my home workers?
they use SMTP AUTH. It works, believe us. With a standard postfix.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Nevermind...it was also hitting
T_LOTS_OF_MONEY
and once I expired old bayes tokens it no longer hit BAYES_00. Now I
just have to figure out whats up with my bayes db.
--Dennis
Quoting "Dennis B. Hopp" :
I have been seeing a few spam mails slip past that talk about being
able to get bogu
On 2/24/2010 10:14 AM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
... but where there should be a comma it puts a period.
I put an example of one of these messages at:
http://pastebin.com/SXuGELUS
It is common in many parts of the world to use a period instead of a
comma as a digit group separator, and vice-ve
I have been seeing a few spam mails slip past that talk about being
able to get bogus dollar amounts. What I mean by that is it will give
a large value in the e-mail but where there should be a comma it puts
a period.
I put an example of one of these messages at:
http://pastebin.com/SXuGE
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
> No, they submit on 25 using TLS+SASL. Would making
> the changes to Firewall, MTA, plus potentially thosands of clients be
> easier than SPF? Would all those angry users screaming because they
> can't send mail at all be a good thing? I don
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:37:49 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote:
>
> >> > Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
> >> > either a different IP or port?
> >>
> >> IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on
> >> different IP-ranges.
> >
> > Wha
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Chip M. wrote:
Note that an IP-based exception must be made for Paypal (the From
domain is always different for user transactions).
I'd wager whitelist_auth is a better way to do that.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@imps
looks like office12/14 forgets to put in the ole headers and FP's on
MISSING_MIMEOLE
20_head_tests.cf:meta MISSING_MIMEOLE(__HAS_MSMAIL_PRI &&
!__HAS_MIMEOLE && !__HAS_SQUIRRELMAIL_IN_MAILER)
20_head_tests.cf:describe MISSING_MIMEOLEMessage has
X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 23.02.10 16:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you specified.
>> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
>> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
>>
Christian Brel wrote:
>> > Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
>> > either a different IP or port?
>>
>> IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on different
>> IP-ranges.
>
> What about my home workers? I don't have a VPN, they hook in by DSL
> from a
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
> > IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on different
> > IP-ranges.
> > What about my home workers? I don't have a VPN, they hook in by DSL
> from any number of different providers from outside using SASL/TLS.
They shoul
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:38:55 +0200
Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:30:25AM +, Christian Brel wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
> > "Rob Sterenborg" wrote:
> >
> > > On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemon
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:41:29 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
> > "Rob Sterenborg" wrote:
> >
> >> On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
> >>
> >> > You don't have
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > I guess you could start hashing things around
> > with IPTables to redirect certain requests, but once you've done all
> > of this, changed all the clients etc. etc, you are saying this would
> > be *easier* than SPF?
> See Mariusz Kruks sugg
Christian Brel wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
> "Rob Sterenborg" wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>>
>> > > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
>>
>> > You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
>>
>> I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:30:25AM +, Christian Brel wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
> "Rob Sterenborg" wrote:
>
> > On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> > > > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
> >
> > > You don't have to run two postfixes for this
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:02:02 +:
>
>> So you would reject outbound mail from your domain? I'm sure that's a
>> typo.
>
> He just didn't show the full configuration. It's obvious that you put
> your allowance checks first.
>
> Kai
I did also say 'th
Rob Sterenborg wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100:
> I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
and I meant what he meant ;-)
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
"Rob Sterenborg" wrote:
> On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
>
> > You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
>
> I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
>
>
> --
> Rob
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:02:02 +:
> So you would reject outbound mail from your domain? I'm sure that's a
> typo.
He just didn't show the full configuration. It's obvious that you put your
allowance checks first.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
> You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
--
Rob
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
>
> Kai
I wasn't suggesting two postfixes, only two smtpds, but what Mariusz
said is even easier.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Jonas, do you have any performance and/or efficacy stats for your
URLRedirect plugin?
After months of near silence, I'm seeing an interesting (albeit
low volume) shortener campaign, that's picking up volume AND
effectiveness.
Only one of my 40-ish domains was getting these, then this week two
oth
On 23.02.10 16:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you specified.
> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
And what is this, if not enforcing SPF at MT
On 23.02.10 15:38, Jeff Koch wrote:
> In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
> enforcement.
You should implement SPF in order to prevent mail forgery, not spam.
SPF is a tool to reduce forgery, not spam.
The fact that most of spam has forged address only helps you.
> Withi
Every few months, someone suggests detecting phish by looking for a
different domain in the target vs display URL in HTML links.
Other suggestions have included testing for different domain in the
SMTP envelope Sender and the hostname of the sending IP.
Every time, the grizzled veterans patiently
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:28:24 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> Christian Brel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:18:38 +0100
> > Per Jessen wrote:
> >
> >> LuKreme wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >> >> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you
> >> >> spe
On Tue, 23.02.2010 at 14:08:30 -0500, alexus wrote:
> is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
man preline
HTH,
--Toni++
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> Well, I guess it depends on your point of view - how difficult is
>> >> it to set up an MTA to reject mails pretending to be from
>> >> that didn't originate on your MTA?
>> > Good question - how would you do it?
>>
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Well, I guess it depends on your point of view - how difficult is it
> >> to set up an MTA to reject mails pretending to be from
> >> that didn't originate on your MTA?
> > Good question - how would you do it?
>
> Postfix: I would have tw
Christian Brel wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:18:38 +0100
> Per Jessen wrote:
>
>> LuKreme wrote:
>>
>> > On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> >> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you
>> >> specified. The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy
>> >> for you
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:18:38 +0100
Per Jessen wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
>
> > On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you
> >> specified. The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy
> >> for your own domain, you can use it to rej
LuKreme wrote:
> On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you specified.
>> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
>> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your
>> users.
>
> And that makes i
Kelson wrote:
> SPF works great as a selective whitelist in SpamAssassin. (And I don't
> mean whitelisting all SPF passes. That would be stupid. I mean
> whitelisting mail coming from domain X, but only when it passes SPF
> and demonstrates that yes, it really came from domain X.)
>
> I'd say tha
55 matches
Mail list logo
