Am 19.03.2015 um 00:54 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:13 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to r
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:13 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
> >> spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posi
Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posioning from
the samples and rebuild bayes from scratch leading in reduce the
ntok
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
> spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posioning from
> the samples and rebuild bayes from scratch leading in reduce the
> ntokens from 170 to 150
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:58 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 10:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
> Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for
On 03/18/2015 10:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
> Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
In general you don't
On 03/18/2015 10:39 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:24 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
> Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
In general you don't want auto-mail running thru SA for this reaso
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:24 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using pri
--On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:11 PM +0100 Reindl Harald
wrote:
The IP is clearly listed in trusted_networks
your problem are not RBL's
your problem are URIBL's and so mail content
ask yourself why autogenerated mails contains crap URLs listed on
URIBL_BLACK, URIBL_JP_SURBL *and* URIBL_
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on
some of thier internal Zimbra serv
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using
Hi Quanah,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.297 tagged_above=-10 required=10
tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01,
URIBL_BLACK=3.25, URIBL_DBL_SPAM=2.5, URIBL_JP_SURBL=1.25,
URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1, URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.608,
URI_HEX=1.
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on
some of thier internal Zimbra se
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on various
bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This appears to
be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on some of thier
internal Zimbra servers. However, when it goes through the MTA, it ge
On 3/18/2015 11:35 AM, Axb wrote:
On 03/18/2015 03:21 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Anyone use this RBL or familiar with it? Pros/cons? Efficacy data?
regards, KAM
What's the problem that you need yet another RBL?
Just researching and they appear broken/delisting issues.
Regards,
KAM
On 03/18/2015 03:21 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Anyone use this RBL or familiar with it? Pros/cons? Efficacy data?
regards, KAM
What's the problem that you need yet another RBL?
I can imagine that many RBLs may be using some parts of DNSWL for their
exception lists so servers involved is a s
From: "Kevin A. McGrail"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:21:39 -0400
Anyone use this RBL or familiar with it? Pros/cons? Efficacy data?
regards, KAM
I get 5% spam hits on DYNA and 10% on NOPTR. The SPAM list isn't that
great (< 1% spam and some false hits).
-jeff
On 18.03.15 10:21, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Anyone use this RBL or familiar with it? Pros/cons? Efficacy data?
just few notices from different people (including me) complaining about
their delisting policy.
I don't recommend using those...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://ww
Anyone use this RBL or familiar with it? Pros/cons? Efficacy data?
regards, KAM
please stay on list
Am 18.03.2015 um 10:46 schrieb Anthony Cartmell:
no, we have per day 300 SA rejects and had 20 clamav hits before change
the order, now the SA reject-count is not much different and only 5
clamav hits per day
I was just reporting that MailScanner had changed its order of sc
Am 18.03.2015 um 10:30 schrieb Anthony Cartmell:
reverse the order in "smtpd_milters" but keep in mind that a well
trained SA rejetcs much more mails than clamav and while clamav needs
less ressources you by-pass the whole virus canner that way
MailScanner used to scan in that order too, SA th
23 matches
Mail list logo
