Re: Bypass URIBL_BLACK check for 1 domain

2014-07-29 13:18 GMT-03:00 Benny Pedersen : disabling html postings with big signature could be a start? On 29.07.14 15:57, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote: How does disabling html helps me? It won't make people angry... HTML does not bbelong to mailing lists. ... afaik you have already got th

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On July 29, 2014 9:50:22 PM Asai wrote: Make your grass greener than the neighbor's. provide cold beers to anyone :)

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 3:20 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:36:51 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: There are those who would define disgustingly rich as a requirement for happiness... Yes, and most of them are unhappy. But I fear we drift OT again... That's the plan that these compa

Re: New SPAMsign: empty text/calendar MIME part

On Jul 29, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Axb wrote: > On 07/29/2014 10:04 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >> This is interesting. Never saw this before. Just got SPAM with an empty >> calendar section: >> >> _7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f6d_ >> Content-type: text/calendar; c

Re: RBL effectiveness (was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...)

On 30/07/2014 04:29, David F. Skoll wrote: originates from servers that RBLs cannot block for political or practical resons. Think Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo servers, for This is the exact attitude as to why they wont get off their arses, because people think they are too big to block. be damn

Re: URIDNSBL check return code

IOn 30/07/2014 00:30, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > Nothing currently in the code Looks like you would have to modify URIDNSBL.pm > to add that info in the sub got_dnsbl_hit to add to the test_log data > >> From looking, $str contains the return data so likely need to look through >> $uris and

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:36:51 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > There are those who would define disgustingly rich as a requirement > for happiness... Yes, and most of them are unhappy. But I fear we drift OT again... > That's the plan that these companies like Microsoft and Google have > designe

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 2:23 PM, Dave Warren wrote: On 2014-07-29 13:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 7/29/2014 12:44 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:37:00 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microsoft/365/whatever-the-name-o-the-week-they-call-themselves all have SIGNIFIC

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 1:39 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:29:25 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [...] Yet you don't use your gmail address to post here - so how is this a fair apples to apples comparison. It isn't. All you saying is - an email address at gmail that I hardly use, do

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 2014-07-29 13:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 7/29/2014 12:44 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:37:00 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microsoft/365/whatever-the-name-o-the-week-they-call-themselves all have SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER spam filtering than Spamassas

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:29:25 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [...] > Yet you don't use your gmail address to post here - so how is this a > fair apples to apples comparison. It isn't. All you saying is - an > email address at gmail that I hardly use, doesn't get a lot of spam - > and an email

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 12:44 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:37:00 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microsoft/365/whatever-the-name-o-the-week-they-call-themselves all have SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER spam filtering than Spamassassin+free/public RBLs+some judicious blacklists.

Re: New SPAMsign: empty text/calendar MIME part

On 07/29/2014 10:04 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: This is interesting. Never saw this before. Just got SPAM with an empty calendar section: _7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f6d_ Content-type: text/calendar; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 _7068

New SPAMsign: empty text/calendar MIME part

This is interesting. Never saw this before. Just got SPAM with an empty calendar section: _7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f6d_ Content-type: text/calendar; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 _7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 07/29/2014 09:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The commercial RBL's let spam through also. As to whether they let as much spam through as, say, spamcops RBL, I'll let others argue that point. But that is NOT the issue I raised in the beginning. The issue is this automatic assumption that comp

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

The commercial RBL's let spam through also. As to whether they let as much spam through as, say, spamcops RBL, I'll let others argue that point. But that is NOT the issue I raised in the beginning. The issue is this automatic assumption that companies like Gmail and Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microsoft/

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

Make your grass greener than the neighbor's. --Asai On 7/29/14 12:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: What do you do?

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:37:00 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microsoft/365/whatever-the-name-o-the-week-they-call-themselves > all have SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER spam filtering than > Spamassassin+free/public RBLs+some judicious blacklists. My experience is only with Gmail. And I ha

Re: RBL effectiveness (was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...)

On Jul 29, 2014, at 12:29 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:21:56 -0400 > Dave Pooser wrote: > > RBLs are a good first line of defense, but unfortunately a lot of spam > originates from servers that RBLs cannot block for political or > practical resons. Think Gmail, Hotmail a

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

The commercial RBL's let spam through also. As to whether they let as much spam through as, say, spamcops RBL, I'll let others argue that point. But that is NOT the issue I raised in the beginning. The issue is this automatic assumption that companies like Gmail and Hotmail/MSN/Live/Microso

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

We use the invaluement lists managed by Rob McEwen and have been very happy with them-- been using them for 3-4 years. A lot of blocking that doesn't overlap with Spamhaus, very few false positives, and those that do occur are addressed quickly with a lot of transparency. Well worth the cash,

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 2014-07-29 12:20, Axb wrote: On 07/29/2014 08:21 PM, Dave Pooser wrote: On 7/29/14, 2:13 PM, "Asai" wrote: My question regarding all of this interesting topic is, isn't there some kind of RBL or something which can be subscribed to for a nominal fee per year that can aid the small IT shop

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 07/29/2014 08:21 PM, Dave Pooser wrote: On 7/29/14, 2:13 PM, "Asai" wrote: My question regarding all of this interesting topic is, isn't there some kind of RBL or something which can be subscribed to for a nominal fee per year that can aid the small IT shop in maintaining spam filters? We

Re: Bypass URIBL_BLACK check for 1 domain

2014-07-29 13:18 GMT-03:00 Benny Pedersen : > disabling html postings with big signature could be a start? > How does disabling html helps me? If you do have the answer for what I've asked, then it's fine to respond my question, like Axb did. If not, please don't bother to answer. Sent with Aqu

Re: RBL effectiveness (was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...)

>RBLs are a good first line of defense, but unfortunately a lot of spam >originates from servers that RBLs cannot block for political or >practical resons. Think Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo servers, for >example. You need something extra to have acceptable catch rates, and >the "something extra" inv

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On July 29, 2014 8:13:49 PM Asai wrote: My question regarding all of this interesting topic is, isn't there some kind of RBL or something which can be subscribed to for a nominal fee per year that can aid the small IT shop in maintaining spam filters? the best one is one that is not public kn

RBL effectiveness (was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:21:56 -0400 Dave Pooser wrote: > We use the invaluement lists managed by Rob McEwen and have been very > happy with them-- been using them for 3-4 years. A lot of blocking > that doesn't overlap with Spamhaus, very few false positives, and > those that do occur are addresse

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/14, 2:13 PM, "Asai" wrote: >My question regarding all of this interesting topic is, isn't there some >kind of RBL or something which can be subscribed to for a nominal fee >per year that can aid the small IT shop in maintaining spam filters? We use the invaluement lists managed by Rob Mc

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On Jul 29, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > On 7/29/2014 10:11 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > 2) If the professional was willing to be paid to re-paint a room >> that clearly didn't need it, they need to get rid of him and find >> someone who won't rip them off. >> > > I think y

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

My question regarding all of this interesting topic is, isn't there some kind of RBL or something which can be subscribed to for a nominal fee per year that can aid the small IT shop in maintaining spam filters? --Asai On 7/28/14 9:10 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Hi All, Just lost another o

RE: Drifting OT [was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...]

Preach it brother! ;-) ...Kevin -- Kevin Miller Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept. 155 South Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500 Registered Linux User No: 307357 -Original Message- From: David F. Skoll [mailto:d...@roaringpenguin.com] Se

Drifting OT [was Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:11:00 -0400 Bowie Bailey wrote: [Church stuff] I think this is getting a bit off-topic... Regards, David.

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 10:11 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 7/29/2014 12:33 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: I learned after a year that if your goal is to have people who don't understand or appreciate what you do for them, and shit all over what you do for them, volunteer for a church. Depends on the church.

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 12:33 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: I learned after a year that if your goal is to have people who don't understand or appreciate what you do for them, and shit all over what you do for them, volunteer for a church. Depends on the church. I do volunteer work for my church on a regul

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/29/2014 9:33 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 7/28/2014 4:17 PM, Jay Plesset wrote: My church decided to go with O-365, without even evaluating any alternatives. We have an unemployed IT person that talked the staff into this, even though I've offered to implement a "real" e-mail solution

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 7/28/2014 4:17 PM, Jay Plesset wrote: My church decided to go with O-365, without even evaluating any alternatives. We have an unemployed IT person that talked the staff into this, even though I've offered to implement a "real" e-mail solution multiple times, and even provide hardware to run

Re: Bypass URIBL_BLACK check for 1 domain

On 29. jul. 2014 17.16.24 "M. Rodrigo Monteiro" wrote: How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com? disabling html postings with big signature could be a start? Sent with AquaMail for Android http://www.aqua-mail.com

Re: Bypass URIBL_BLACK check for 1 domain

On 07/29/2014 05:15 PM, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote: Hi. How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com? how can we bypass you incredibly pointless footers? http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_URIDNSBL.txt "USER SETTINGS" uridnsbl_skip

Bypass URIBL_BLACK check for 1 domain

Hi. How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com? M. Rodrigo Monteiro "Free

Re: URIDNSBL check return code

On 7/26/2014 11:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 26/07/2014 03:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 7/24/2014 9:42 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Hi, Is there a way to get the return code in the generated reports? eg: uridnssub ALT_URI bl.foo A 127.0.0.2-127.0.0.11 body ALT_URI eval:check_uridnsbl('ALT_URI')

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 07/29/2014 09:11 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 28.07.14 10:29, Nate Metheny wrote: Sadly, until SMTP is rewritten and we're not using protocols on the Internet that have been based on very very old code and then just patched and updated ad infinitum, there isn't a "sure fire" solution.

Re: Ready to throw in the towel on email providing...

On 28.07.14 10:29, Nate Metheny wrote: Sadly, until SMTP is rewritten and we're not using protocols on the Internet that have been based on very very old code and then just patched and updated ad infinitum, there isn't a "sure fire" solution. More patches, more fixes, more filters, more overhea