On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 12:49 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 20:38 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> >> ----- "Clunk Werclick" wrote:
> >>
> >> | On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 19:52 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]--
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 20:38 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> - "Clunk Werclick" wrote:
>
> | On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 19:52 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> | > - "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
> | >
> | > | On man 14 sep 2009 16:54:39 CEST, Bill Landry
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 19:52 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> - "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
>
> | On man 14 sep 2009 16:54:39 CEST, Bill Landry wrote
> | > So how far does someone have to go before getting banned from the
> | > list? Is this not far enough yet?
> |
> | he just come back with another
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:06 -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> >
> >> On 14-Sep-2009, at 05:24, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when
> >>> presented with counter arguments then pleas
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 07:54 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 08:05 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> >> On 14-Sep-2009, at 05:24, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> >>> If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when
> >>
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 08:05 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 14-Sep-2009, at 05:24, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when
> > presented with counter arguments then please ban. The list would be
> > far happier IMHO.
>
> Based on his reply to Matus I
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 12:24 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> - "Clunk Werclick" wrote:
>
> | On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> | > > > On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> | > > > > I disagree. I
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > > > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and
> > > > observation from the past have rendered it pointless in my context. I
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 16:37 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and
> > observation
> > from the past have rendered it pointless in my context. It adds
> > latency,
> &
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 22:54 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On søn 13 sep 2009 07:57:59 CEST, Clunk Werclick wrote
>
> > **PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE THREAD TO ANSWER YOU QUESTION**
> >> are you using sa-update ?
> > Yes, every night.
>
> remember this is public
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 20:57 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:19:35 +0100
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 14:06 +0100, RW wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:56:27 +0100
> > > Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > >
> > {trimmed d
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 14:06 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:56:27 +0100
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
{trimmed down to the relevant point you make}
> Adding irrelevant text to a spam may make it less likely likely to be
> caught,
Thank you. So if your bayes 'good&#x
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 06:36 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On lør 12 sep 2009 15:10:41 CEST, Clunk Werclick wrote
>
> i ignore your reply-to :)
>
> > I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like this:
>
> why not ?
**PLEASE READ THE REST OF
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 01:34 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:00 +0100
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2009
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >>
> >> What's wrong with the bayes?
> >
> > Bayes is going out of fashion.
>
&g
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >
> > I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like
> > this:
> >
> > 4.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or
> > virusbot
> >
> > This is a vanilla Spamassassin - but I'm surprised I'm
> > not getting any
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:05 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > I was somewhat surprised that this failed to score;
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m4c75e3ac
> >
> > Log excerpt;
> > Sat Sep 12 05:08:57 2009 [7319] info: spamd: result: . 0 -
> > HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
> > scantime=0.3,size=540
I was somewhat surprised that this failed to score;
http://pastebin.com/m4c75e3ac
Log excerpt;
Sat Sep 12 05:08:57 2009 [7319] info: spamd: result: . 0 -
HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
scantime=0.3,size=5400,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=55111,mid=<00fada512664885bffba2
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:50 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > This is probably a dumb question, but my looking through
> > the docs is just confusing me.
> >
> > Can I get SpamAssassin to fully log what it is doing? The
> > best I can ever get is something like this;
> >
> > Mon Aug 3 06:27:57
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 09:34 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > I have it now - the only disappointment for me is it does not log the
> > 'to' or 'from' or client ip.
>
> You may be able to determine that if you
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 09:08 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > Can I get SpamAssassin to fully log what it is doing? The best I can
> > ever get is something like this;
> >
> > Mon Aug 3 06:27:57 2009 [4290] info: logger:
This is probably a dumb question, but my looking through the docs is
just confusing me.
Can I get SpamAssassin to fully log what it is doing? The best I can
ever get is something like this;
Mon Aug 3 06:27:57 2009 [4290] info: logger: removing stderr method
Mon Aug 3 06:27:58 2009 [4292] info:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 23:33 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Clunk Werclick a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 01:36 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm starting to see plenty of these and they are new to us:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 09:46 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 2-Sep-2009, at 23:19, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > zgrep "address not listed" /var/log/mail.info
> > Sep 3 05:26:59 : warning: 222.252.239.56: address not listed for
> > hostname loca
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 16:00 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu 03 Sep 2009 03:05:50 PM CEST, Justin Mason wrote
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:18, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >> On Thu 03 Sep 2009 07:19:35 AM CEST, Clunk Werclick wrote
> >>> Forgive the stupidity of
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 05:23 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > Howdie;
> >
> > I'm starting to see plenty of these and they are new to us:
> >
> > zgrep "address not listed" /var/log/mail.info
> > Sep 3 05:26:59
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 01:36 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > I'm starting to see plenty of these and they are new to us:
> >
> > zgrep "address not listed" /var/log/mail.info
> > Sep 3 05:26:59 : wa
Howdie;
I'm starting to see plenty of these and they are new to us:
zgrep "address not listed" /var/log/mail.info
Sep 3 05:26:59 : warning: 222.252.239.56: address not listed for
hostname localhost
dig -x 222.252.239.56
...
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;56.239.252.222.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR
;; ANSWE
28 matches
Mail list logo
