On Mit, 2011-02-23 at 18:48 +, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:20 +0100
[...]
> That's true for person to person mail, but there are kinds of mail
> where loss is inconsequential and no-one is going to read the DSNs
> e.g. newsletters.
Sounds like a spammer? SCNR
And that's a dec
On Mit, 2011-02-23 at 11:08 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
>
> > It is against best practices to have a send-only domain.
> >
> > A sending mail server should accept ab...@example.com, and number of
> > other IDs according to best practices.
>
> And postma
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:17:47 -0500
Alex wrote:
> While some of the mail from that sender seems legitimate, other mail
> clearly isn't, but it has the same header as a legitimate mail, making
> it very difficult to properly train bayes or otherwise accurately
> determine that it's indeed spam and
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:49:43 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch
>> And postmas...@example.com is _required_.
> So all sender-only domains should simply put on rfc-ignorant.org.
not really a fault of rfc-ignorant that it will be disabled default in
upcomming next version of spamassassin, but mx scoreing is
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:48:21 +0100
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-02-23 at 18:48 +, RW wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:20 +0100
> [...]
> > That's true for person to person mail, but there are kinds of mail
> > where loss is inconsequential and no-one is going to read the DSNs
Multiple comments ...
I just want Spamassassin to check if there is a MX Record in DNS for
the sender.
I have no sense of how productive this would be. Have you looked up
a good sample of sender domains and found that spammers are significantly
less likely to have an MX? That would make it
Hello Mahmoud Khonji,
Am 2011-02-23 23:03:46, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> A sending mail server should accept ab...@example.com, and number of
This is wrong because, only public ISP offering MAILSERVICES must have
an addresses. The only one required, is the which
is clearly writte in
Hello Joseph Brennan,
Am 2011-02-24 09:43:24, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I have no sense of how productive this would be. Have you looked up
> a good sample of sender domains and found that spammers are significantly
> less likely to have an MX? That would make it interesting to check.
D
Hello Alex,
Am 2011-02-23 22:17:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering what people's opinion is on domains like
> verticalresponse.com and vresp.com, and others, that seem to
> distribute mail to anyone who wants to spend the money to buy a list
> from them. Constantcontact m
On 24 Feb 2011, at 20:01, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Mahmoud Khonji,
>
> Am 2011-02-23 23:03:46, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> A sending mail server should accept ab...@example.com, and number of
>
> This is wrong because, only public ISP offering MAILSERVICES must have
> an addres
Hi Everyone, sorry I'm a super Newbie on Spamassassin...my stupid question is
this:
I've created a rule for a blocked URIs - where do I tell spamassassin to use
that rule? The only thing I see in the documenation is to not put the cf
file in a certain directory because it will be overwritten dur
Hi
You create a file.cf with your rules and you place it in spamassassin folder
and restart spamassassin
Regards
Hi Everyone, sorry I'm a super Newbie on Spamassassin...my stupid question is
this:
I've created a rule for a blocked URIs - where do I tell spamassassin to use
that rule? The
On 2/24/2011 5:04 PM, tr_ust wrote:
> Hi Everyone, sorry I'm a super Newbie on Spamassassin...my stupid question is
> this:
>
> I've created a rule for a blocked URIs - where do I tell spamassassin to use
> that rule? The only thing I see in the documenation is to not put the cf
> file in a certai
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 14:04 -0800, tr_ust wrote:
> I've created a rule for a blocked URIs - where do I tell spamassassin to use
> that rule? The only thing I see in the documenation is to not put the cf
> file in a certain directory because it will be overwritten during an
> upgrade.
>
Put it i
Hi,
>> While some of the mail from that sender seems legitimate, other mail
>> clearly isn't, but it has the same header as a legitimate mail, making
>> it very difficult to properly train bayes or otherwise accurately
>> determine that it's indeed spam and it should be discarded.
>
> I wouldn't o
15 matches
Mail list logo
