On 9 Apr 2007, at 15:18, J. wrote:
--- ram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
1) Verify recipient addresses
2) Add SPF records for your domain. And blacklist those servers who
accept forged mails from your domain and bounce them
3) If you are suddenly facing a flush of Mailer-Demons give a
On 30 Jun 2006, at 23:25, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
snip
Sure you do... at least auth headers that you know you added.
Your problem is that Postfix doesn't include RFC 3848 style (or
any) auth tokens.
This TLS line is only added when someone authenticates
On 1 Jul 2006, at 00:32, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote:
It's better to look at the 'Authenticated sender':
Received: from bar.example.org (bar.example.org [127.0.0.1])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present
Hi there,
On 22 Jun 2006, at 15:47, Tracey Gates wrote:
I've been reading up on SPF and understand that it checks the
validity of the return address of an email and if that return
address is valid, it doesn't change the scoring of the email to
identify it as spam...a wash so to speak. If
On 19 Jun 2006, at 17:26, Chris Santerre wrote:
Still I don't know how to create a rule like this. But as someone
else
in the bug tracker already mentioned a year ago, what SpamAssassin
misses to do things like that is a 'rawbody' match that uses
the entire
message, not only single
On 12 Jun 2006, at 07:53, Michael Monnerie wrote:
yesterday I've got some new kind of spam:
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from abruxateatro.com (unknown [210.245.161.31])
by power2u.goelsen.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
for _; Sun, 11 Jun
On 9 Jun 2006, at 13:56, Jason Staudenmayer wrote:
Is anyone else getting spam from gmail? The ones I'm getting are very
lengthy but doesn't look like bayes poison.
It's _not from_ GMail.
snip
Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.0.4) (66.148.73.132)
by mail2.adventureaquarium.com with
On 4 Jun 2006, at 18:35, WFGB Team wrote:
Yes, we have someone looking into that this Wednesday to give us a
quote on that. However the original issue was SPAM assassin
detecting our own emails as SPAM. That issue has been resolved and
therefore closing out the thread.
All uppercase
On 27 May 2006, at 19:09, Philip Mak wrote:
I'm getting about 50+ per day of these spams not being caught by
SpamAssassin (SpamAssassin version 3.1.1 running on Perl version
5.8.4). There's two types:
snip
These spams all have different URLs, but if you visit them they're
exactly the same
On 25 May 2006, at 16:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700:
Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf.
Even though I
like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level,
these two
create too many false positives.
On 25 May 2006, at 20:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally
broken:
No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken.
Agreed, it works in a later version.
snip
On 25 May 2006, at 21:54, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to
write:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally
broken:
No, *your* whois client
12 matches
Mail list logo
