On 2015-04-01 19:23, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:21 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Is there an ETA for 3.4.1? And, is there anything else I can do mean
time?
3.4.1 is planned to announce for release during ApacheCon in about 2
weeks.
1 - Make sure you are using the new Registrar Bounda
Phooey. Make that
header CBJ_SCIENCE From =~ /\.science\b/i
The former example clobbers stuff from India...
...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
On 4/1/2015 8:21 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Is there an ETA for 3.4.1? And, is there anything else I can do mean
time?
3.4.1 is planned to announce for release during ApacheCon in about 2 weeks.
1 - Make sure you are using the new Registrar Boundary with the TLDs
that are plaguing you.
2 - Ar
I simply added them to my sendmail access file with a REJECT. Problem solved.
Of the ones that came in, I couldn't find any ham so didn't think twice about
being ruthless. If you need to take a more cautious approach, just write a
rule to score them higher. For instance, dropping this in a .c
On 2015-04-01 19:23, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:21 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Is there an ETA for 3.4.1? And, is there anything else I can do mean
time?
3.4.1 is planned to announce for release during ApacheCon in about 2
weeks.
1 - Make sure you are using the new Registrar Bounda
On 4/1/2015 8:18 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2015-04-01 19:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:13 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I've been getting pounded with stuff from "new" tld's (cricket,
science, work, et al).
I'm wondering how to make SA more immune to it.
Spamples: http://pastebin.
On 2015-04-01 19:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:18 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2015-04-01 19:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:13 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I've been getting pounded with stuff from "new" tld's (cricket,
science, work, et al).
I'm wondering how to make SA
On 2015-04-01 19:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:13 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I've been getting pounded with stuff from "new" tld's (cricket,
science, work, et al).
I'm wondering how to make SA more immune to it.
Spamples: http://pastebin.com/jc3efYju Are you using a recent SA from
On 4/1/2015 8:13 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I've been getting pounded with stuff from "new" tld's (cricket,
science, work, et al).
I'm wondering how to make SA more immune to it.
Spamples: http://pastebin.com/jc3efYju
Are you using a recent SA from trunk? The RegistrarBoundaries.pm for
new T
I've been getting pounded with stuff from "new" tld's (cricket, science,
work, et al).
I'm wondering how to make SA more immune to it.
Spamples: http://pastebin.com/jc3efYju
Thanks!
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 214-642-9640 E-Mail:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
> You can reject on RDNS (or lack thereof) in sendmail depending on the
> version. Search for "require_rdns".
Thanks, I'll look into it. Sadly I don't think I have time to manually
whitelist misconfigured servers, since I suspect there are not
On 04/01/2015 10:45 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Certainly it would be interesting to add such capability to SA (to
add points for known spammy DNS providers and/or registrars), though
I imagine that could be a recipe for FPs in some cases. Then again,
we did it for .pw URIs, so...
You can do it run
> -Original Message-
> Ah, I see... you killed them at the firewall itself, before they even
> got to sendmail. I was wondering how blocking the name servers
> themselves would help, since (at least in my configuration) sendmail
> doesn't reject just due to bad rDNS (not sure if that's eve
On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
> I blocked the RRPPROXY.NET name servers at the firewall. [...] After I did
> that, almost instantly the spam dropped dramatically.
[...]
> There was some discussion in this group about blocking on DNS providers about
> a month or so ago, spawned
I'm a bit late to the party (was on vacation) but your woes sounded awfully
familiar. I was getting slammed by spam a couple months ago. The domains
changed daily, but the one consistent thing was they were all served by
RRPPROXY.NET. I blocked the RRPPROXY.NET name servers at the firewall.
On 01/04/15 17:41, Amir Caspi wrote:
Going back to this:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Well, this wouldn't be the first or only rule that doesn't work for everyone... plus, I would
certainly make it case sensitive, so that "John" wouldn't match "john@", for
example. This
On 4/1/2015 12:41 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Going back to this:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
That might be reasonable for most email addresses, but there are quite a few
people who have a usable name or nickname as the user part of their email.
(j...@example.com). It would
Going back to this:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> That might be reasonable for most email addresses, but there are quite a few
> people who have a usable name or nickname as the user part of their email.
> (j...@example.com). It would not make sense to score an email just
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The way it's written, it will only hit if the Subject header follows the To
header.
I thought John modified the rule to fix that, about a year ago... did that not
get implemented in production?
It will
On 4/1/2015 10:20 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The way it's written, it will only hit if the Subject header follows the To
header.
I thought John modified the rule to fix that, about a year ago... did that not
get implemented in production?
Apparent
On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> The way it's written, it will only hit if the Subject header follows the To
> header.
I thought John modified the rule to fix that, about a year ago... did that not
get implemented in production?
--- Amir
thumbed via iPhone
Hello Bowie,
Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 3:08:10 PM, you wrote:
BB> The way it's written, it will only hit if the Subject header follows the
BB> To header.
Ho Hum!
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpmInVp50o64.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 4/1/2015 9:58 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Amir,
Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 4:44:08 AM, you wrote:
AC> I'm guessing that TO_IN_SUBJ only pops when the Subject: contains the full
email address in To:
Didnit hit on this-
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:05:53 +
Return-Path:
Subject: ad...@ho
Hello Amir,
Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 4:44:08 AM, you wrote:
AC> I'm guessing that TO_IN_SUBJ only pops when the Subject: contains the full
email address in To:
Didnit hit on this-
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:05:53 +
Return-Path:
Subject: ad...@holtain.co.uk
Reply-To: marketingmodelstrat..
On 3/31/2015 11:44 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Hi,
I'm guessing that TO_IN_SUBJ only pops when the Subject: contains the
full email address in To:, not just the user part... is that right? I've been
getting a bunch of spam (some of which ends up as FNs) with just the username
portion of To
25 matches
Mail list logo
