On 3/6/2011 3:15 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 06/03/11 11:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I have no comment on your proposed solution. I can however point out the
statistics that I see on my own spam traps.
It seems that 90%+ of the spam coming from DNSWL listed hosts is Yahoo
and Hotmail which are
Hi Alex,
thanks for those two important points.
Each question and answer is now attributed with the author, a link to
the original post (apache's mailing list archives) and the date it was
contributed.
Regards,
Stefan
Am 23.02.2011 14:54, schrieb Alex:
Hi,
I'm currently doing research
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'd agree, but users wont rebel against Yahoo unless they begin to see
actual bounces to their sent mail.
I don't know about your end users, but ours typically get flummoxed if mail
from this well known and trusted free mail providers would not arrive to
them...
Hello,
since 2011-01-19 I have a problem because my FTTH was accidently cuted
and now no one want ot be responsable including my ISP.
OK, 88.168.69.36 had an rDNS to mail.tamay-dogan.net and was working
perfectly and gotten never rejects except from Hotmail which use a realy
weird ANTI-SPAM
W dniu 07.03.2011 13:40, Michelle Konzack pisze:
Hello,
since 2011-01-19 I have a problem because my FTTH was accidently cuted
and now no one want ot be responsable including my ISP.
OK, 88.168.69.36 had an rDNS to mail.tamay-dogan.net and was working
perfectly and gotten never rejects
On Mar 6, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Mynabbler wrote:
The amount of junkmail coming from your systems is unbelievable. How hard is
it to implement a cap on the amount of messages people can send out daily
with your systems.
They do that.
And that includes the number of Cc's and Bcc's one
message
On 03/06/2011 11:33 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:51 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
I just found an incoming message which is ham but marked as spam.
It received a score of 14 because it is in the auto white-list.
Shouldn't it receive a negative score?
On 07/03/11 12:10, Mynabbler wrote:
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'd agree, but users wont rebel against Yahoo unless they begin to see
actual bounces to their sent mail.
I don't know about your end users, but ours typically get flummoxed if mail
from this well known and trusted free mail
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:51:47 +
Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Like you, I've yet to find a reliable set of meta rules to
effectively deal with this junk and invariably it turns into a game
of chasing one's tail.
We use an in-house DNSBL based on our reputation-reporting code
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Adam Katz wrote:
On 03/06/2011 11:33 AM, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:51 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
I just found an incoming message which is ham but marked as spam.
It received a score of 14 because it is in the auto white-list.
Shouldn't it receive a
On 3/7/2011 2:10 AM, Mynabbler wrote:
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'd agree, but users wont rebel against Yahoo unless they begin to see
actual bounces to their sent mail.
I don't know about your end users, but ours typically get flummoxed if mail
from this well known and trusted free mail
On 3/7/11 4:13 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Adam Katz wrote:
On 03/06/2011 11:33 AM, Karsten Br�ckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:51 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
I just found an incoming message which is ham but marked as spam.
It received a score of 14 because it is in the auto
I also have some thoughts about discarding hammers at the end of that
document.
if awl had unixtime stamp for last change time, one could add time test
for at least x days where its was score aveageing, but if less then x days
dont give negative for ham
that would hardened it more to be
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, [UTF-8] Marcin Miros�^Baw wrote:
W dniu 07.03.2011 13:40, Michelle Konzack pisze:
Hello,
since 2011-01-19 I have a problem because my FTTH was accidently cuted
and now no one want ot be responsable including my ISP.
OK, 88.168.69.36 had an rDNS to
14 matches
Mail list logo
