On 01/17/2011 10:22 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* JKL ju...@klunky.co.uk:
On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
Hi there,
Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
address is blacklisted by the user? Did I
On Monday, January 17, 2011, 10:52:58 PM, Warren Jr. wrote:
Hi folks,
Here is an opportunity for non-developers to do simple tasks to help
improve Spamassassin.
I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a ham trap.
The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 01:46 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
While I certainly would encourage improving ham and spam corpora,
this proposal may open up a lot of grey areas that may be
non-trivial to resolve.
Agreed, and some companies will get to you sign up for accounting and
service problem
Le 18/01/2011 10:46, Jeff Chan a écrit :
2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
ham. Some more aggressive anti-spammers may say all of the above
is spam, but others may disagree, and the mail may be legal.
I'd suggest that SA ought to be classifying e-mail in *three*
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:13:22 +0100, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot
LDA.
dont use sieve reject since if you are
On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
So a couple points:
1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
the above.
2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
ham. Some more aggressive anti-spammers may say all of the above
is spam, but others may
On 1/18/2011 1:15 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 01:46 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
While I certainly would encourage improving ham and spam corpora,
this proposal may open up a lot of grey areas that may be
non-trivial to resolve.
Agreed, and some companies will get to you sign
On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot LDA.
You cannot do this from the delivery agent without
On 01/18/2011 03:59 PM, m...@junc.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:13:22 +0100, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I don't think I can do this with Sieve/Dovecot
On 01/18/2011 04:20 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I
On 18/01/2011 16:20, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
If you're thinking of detecting spam at SMTP time you should consider
greylisting. When my ISP implemented it the spam I get dropped
immediately from 80% of my mail to 8%, where its remained ever
Em 18-01-2011 13:26, Giles Coochey escreveu:
I enabled Greylisting for a while. Unfortunately - I found that the
MTAs my MTA communicated with responded in unreliable ways. Some MTAs
would not try any of my MX records (all using the same Greylisting db)
for at least a day, while others would
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:37:40 -0200
Rejaine Monteiro reja...@bhz.jamef.com.br wrote:
I'm not prepared to wait 24 hours for mail servers to successfully
send me mails - it's the equivalent of sealing my letterbox on
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for me, and I want near-real time
email
On 18/01/2011 16:46, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:37:40 -0200
Rejaine Monteiroreja...@bhz.jamef.com.br wrote:
I also gave up using greylist due to the same problems.
I find that very surprising. We've used greylisting for years and
have never noticed such problems. (We
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:55:42 +0100
Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail
server to try
On 01/18/2011 04:20 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:00 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 1/18/2011 4:13 AM, J4 wrote:
I have Dovecot LDA so Sieve might well be a good idea, but I would
like to inform the sender that the Email was dropped as spam, and
avoid backscatter. I
On 1/18/2011 11:12 AM, J4 wrote:
Right - I've moved the SA scanning to the front of postfix, and it
scans accordingly and adds headers.
What is odd, is that :-
It seems that the AWL white-lists the email addresses that were
black-listed. Additionally, the shortcircuit should have
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
to silently drop spam from delivery?
There are several: MimeDefang, Spamassassin-Milter and amavisd-new come to
mind.
MimeDefang and Spamassassin-Milter work as MILTERS (see: smtpd_milters
I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
disable it by default now.
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
On 18 January 2011 16:35, Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com wrote:
On 1/18/2011 11:12 AM, J4 wrote:
Right - I've moved the SA scanning to the front of
On 01/18/2011 05:39 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
to silently drop spam from delivery?
There are several: MimeDefang, Spamassassin-Milter and amavisd-new come to
mind.
MimeDefang and
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:43 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
disable it by default now.
I found it was a pain with a user population of one and disable it
automatically.
Martin
Disabled. Done :-O
Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:43 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I tend to find AWL is a pain in a user population of more than 10 and
disable it by default now.
I found it was a pain with a user population of one and disable it
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it. ;) ).
Parse the SPAM during the SMPT session and use only RAM: Perfect.
I would still like to notify the
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it. ;) ).
Parse the SPAM during the SMPT session and use
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it. ;) ).
Parse the SPAM
On 01/18/2011 07:54 PM, J4 wrote:
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it. ;) ).
Parse the SPAM
On 01/18/2011 08:33 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
On 01/18/2011 08:41 PM, J4 wrote:
On 01/18/2011 07:54 PM, J4 wrote:
On 01/18/2011 06:51 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
This is pretty much what I would like to achieve, the reason I
decided not to use Dovecot Sieve (apart from me being incapable of
setting it.
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
GTUBE test message from http://gtube.net/gtube.txt produced:-
Jan 18 21:06:45 logout postfix/cleanup[30304]: 7F8DE8232B:
milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from smtp-auth.no-ip.com[204.16.252.94]:
5.7.1 Blocked by SpamAssassin; from=j...@klunky.co.uk
to=t...@abc.info
On 01/18/2011 09:18 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
GTUBE test message from http://gtube.net/gtube.txt produced:-
Jan 18 21:06:45 logout postfix/cleanup[30304]: 7F8DE8232B:
milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from smtp-auth.no-ip.com[204.16.252.94]:
5.7.1 Blocked by
On 1/18/11 4:58 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:55:42 +0100
Giles Coocheygi...@coochey.net wrote:
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:33 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveld r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
RFC821/RFC2821/RFC5321 points out that a client has to wait a minimum
of 30 minutes before a retry attempt should be made,
That's fine. I don't care if an email from someone I've never heard
from before is
Hi All
To answer David's post, extract from our scanning system for today.
*Jan 18 01:53:19 sendmail[8404]: p0I1rIDg008404:
from=debenhams5-boun...@shopdebenhams.com, size=43048, class=0,
nrcpts=1, msgid=debenh...@shopdebenhams.com, proto=ESMTP,
daemon=MTA,
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:20 +
Gary Forrest ga...@netnorth.co.uk wrote:
Interesting 2 of our 3 scanning heads use a grey list system that
uses /32 addresses as part of the process, these two servers have
100's of emails delayed for well over a day. Our 3rd scanning head
uses a grey list
On 1/18/11 11:02 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:33 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveldr.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
RFC821/RFC2821/RFC5321 points out that a client has to wait a minimum
of 30 minutes before a retry attempt should be made,
That's fine. I don't care if an email
On 01/18/2011 12:31 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:20 +
Gary Forrestga...@netnorth.co.uk wrote:
Interesting 2 of our 3 scanning heads use a grey list system that
uses /32 addresses as part of the process, these two servers have
100's of emails delayed for well over a
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:37:07 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveld r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
I agree with you, looking at my own personal situation. However, many
mail admins (and maybe you too) are responsible for the e-mail
handling of many (tens/hundreds/thousands) of users. Most users have
On 1/18/11 12:52 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a ham trap.
The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses to various
retailers, airlines, government and other legitimate bulk mail senders.
The possible
On 01/18/2011 03:25 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 1/18/11 12:52 AM, Warren Togami Jr.wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a ham trap.
The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses to various
retailers, airlines, government and other
40 matches
Mail list logo
