On Fri, 04 Dec 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Point 4 -
> All that is largely irrelevant to this list, but my point of interest is
> why a commercial white list appears in Spamassassin with the default
> scores set the way they are? It's perfectly reasonable to ask. It could
> be expanded t
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
> I could find your IP (82.113.106.21) on these lists :
>
... ... ...
>
> IP of your server (62.231.42.10) I found on these lists :
>
> blocked.secnap.net127.0.0.2
> countries.nerd.dk 127.0.0.1
> ips.backscatterer.org 127.0.0.2
B
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, July 16, 2009 12:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Don't you just love them :-)
Well, I seem to remember the nearly same scenario a long while ago.
Somebody went through nearly the same 'contorions' to always avoid
the last 'matching' which
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Here's a simple bash shell script fragment that does the job and does it
> fairly fast:
>
>
> for f in data/*.txt
...
> gawk '
...
> done
> ==
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:59:12AM -0500, Steven Stern wrote:
> I received about 500 on the webmaster account.
>
> Now we know what "sober" was all about.
I see *no* connection to any Virus or Trojan!
I got about 200 of them into a few accounts and
seemingly I'm receiving more every few minutes.
Hi!
I lately received two Barkley-Bank-Phishs, but could not really
read them with my ASCII mailreader.
The first line of the mail is in my ASCII Browser:
D#8238;rae#8236; Ba#8238;lcr#8236;ays Memb#8238;re#8236;,
All 'mozillas' show
Dera Balcrays Membre,
BUT even though MIME-encoding was of
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 03:37:02PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
> 1) Don't accept mail for invalid users.
Well, I often tought about not accepting Mail *FROM* locally-illegal-Users.
The 'To' is done by the MTA, but the 'From' would be nice also.
It would drop all the spams faking random local User
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:24:25AM -0800, Kelson wrote:
...
> 5. We generate DSNs that go to third parties or nonexistant hosts,
>contributing to backscatter and cluttering up our outbound queue.
...
Even worse, the result of bounces sent by _our_ MTA was
being Spamcop-RBLed for hitting spamtra
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:26:43AM -0500, Joe Flowers wrote:
> For us, SA *seems* to score SPAM messages with lower and lower hit
> scores as time goes by, and the users get more and more glassy-eyed over
> it's ("my" if you prefer) effectiveness as time goes by too.
OH, interesting, I think I h
Hi!
I attach a 'funny' Mail I got bounced from one of our
Users, because it looks like 'broken/misconfigured Ratware'.
Maybe somebody can update Rules for such things/structures?
The most interesting point seems to be, that the
Tool creates three 'Received-Headers' to fool
'first-hop' IP/Domain c
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:37:12PM -0500, Matt wrote:
> Ok that works great if you KNOW the domain.. but what do you do when
> this happens once every 3 or 4 days to random domains?
Oops! No idea, had something like this by network glitches,
which made random DNS-Servers unavailable. But we cou
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:12PM -0500, Matt wrote:
> Ahh ha! Got it.. it seems to be domains that either the name servers
> are not responding.. or the domain doesn't exist yet.. for instance:
>
> debug: DNS MX records found: 0
>
> Is there anyway to get around this? It seems to hang and do t
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:33:11PM -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
> My spamassassin 3.0.2 can be directed to tag a test message as spam
> (debian testing), but amavisd-new is not automatically sending
...
> I know spamd is running. In /etc/default/spamassassin I have ENABLED =
> 1, and in amavisd.conf,
Hi!
I'm just curious whether a very strange spam is send to
'many' users. Today many addresses here were hit by
absolutely *useless* messages, which *look* like real
spam, as long as you look at the subject, which ist
the often recurring theme of 'telephone-cd with reverse
search enabled'. But l
I got the following spam today, it might be someting
for rules to check for broken ratware, but it might
also produce false positives in 'computer talk' :-)
The text is completely irrelevant, but the spammers
address/url/contact ist missing due to database failure:-))
Yours Stucki
- Forward
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 02:07:05PM -0800, Kelson wrote:
> A SpamAssassin ruleset can't make any changes to the message AFAIK, so
> it doesn't matter which rules you have installed.
>
> If SA is adding the newline, it's either due to a configuration option
> (check your local.cf) or due to a bug.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:42:34AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
...
> >X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
...
> >What can give this error?
ON 29th of October "Alexandr Orlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
also wrote a Question to the list, containig the
same Header.
He said "I have a linux box with Communig
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:42:20AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Since your box has 256mb of physical ram, I'd limit it to maximum of
> 256mb/15mb = 17 spamd's at the highest. I'd really suggest using something
> much lower like 10 unless you add some ram.
Even this seems to be dangerous (sometim
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:17:15AM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 1:38:30 AM, Julian Field wrote:
> > ... Is it possible to detect where
> > bar
> > and foo and bar are unrelated domains?
>
> That could be a good idea for a rule. It would be nice if it
> could be dete
19 matches
Mail list logo
