If I've been following this thread correctly, linux4michelle has
already
stated he/she receives messages from their ISP. Therefore, rejecting
at
the SMTP level will ultimately cause the ISP to be a source of
backscatter (i.e. not receiving messages directly), which he/she can
not
reject.
Spamers are using MY linux4michelle E-Mail spaming
russian servers and now Ihave gotten nearly
200.000 backscatters which make my account unusable
specialy for my customers and peoples which
urgently need my help without passing over mailinglists...
So you do deliver the
Well,
since many guys are recommending what they use (IronPort, Barracuda) I
thought I might bring BarricadeMX from Fort Systems into the game. Have
a look at them. It is _very_ efficient and can be configured to use
SpamAssassin as well. Comes with a very easy install for CentOS 5.2.
Kind
http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you
provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this
data.
Possible.
Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you
should be explicit with your links.
2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to do when an
unknown mail server contacts you is different in the approach.
greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this
point, because the botnets know to retry
And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
responses.
FYI: So are other products (at least one). And slowing down TCP sessions
will hit ISPs as well btw. but that's a different stories.
Oh and btw:
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!) features
MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure it is I who has to
do the researching?
Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having to slow
down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here
to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
everyone read the information available.
http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
Hi
In both cases, they don't provide any serious study. they only show
numbers that go with their claims. I don't know for others, but my logs
don't seem to confirm theirs.
Where do they show numbers? Could not find any.
and the slowdown thing is based on the theory that spammers have
Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of research?
I did.
Mailchannels idea may not work for you. But it's worth doing a bit of
research.
Oh the idea is nice. But there are others out there that - from my
personal perspective - are doing this stuff much better, at least from
Hi,
is there a simple way of using the same Bayes-DB (mysql based) for
multiple Spamassassin installations concurrently? Can I just point all
machines to the same DB or will this lead to corruption?
Kind regards,
JP
It really doesn't matter to me whether it was on urisbl/surbl when he
sent it. I provided what our server marked this as as an example of
rules that he could look at as to why it was scored low. Other people
that don't use unwanted language may not need it, but in some cases
it
helps,
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL
blocklist
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/spam003.txt
Could you paste the message itself (queue file)? Would like to see what
my installation has to say about this one. :-)
Hi,
I just noticed BotNet (0.8) causing SA timeouts when used with
MailScanner. This is what the log gives me:
[21308] dbg: spf: query for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/75.117.130.5/unknown: result: fail,
comment: Please see
http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=esuapmet_1966%40mater.ustb.edu.cnip=75.11
Then it just hangs for quite some time and finally runs into the
timeout. Any idea?
A known problem, it uses a default timeout of Net::DNS,
which is very long for certain unresolvable DNS queries.
Try the following patch:
Looks like this did the trick!
Great. Thanks!
and isn't
considered to be that much better than C/R (it doesn't clutter a
forged-sender's mail box, but it can bog down a forged-sender's mail
server with verification requests).
Well, it may be. I know, however, that a lot of people is doing this
at
the
MTA level in order to reject
AFAIK: No there is no way.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:32 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to get Spam report in header?
We use MailScanner and Spamassassin.
Our email has a header line as
On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:53 PM ram wrote:
This is a very intelligently written scam mail
http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not
able to catch this spam
Bayes has messed up agreed but even not counting bayes almost no
On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:15 PM ram wrote:
bayes_99 = 7.0. Oops dont you get FPs on that.
Maybe once or twice a month. Other negative rules usually get the mails below 6
which is my spam threashold. Using MailScanner those mails are still delivered
to my Junk Mail Folder in Outlook.
Hi,
please excuse me if the archives already answer the question and I overlooked
it.
I am going to upgrade to 3.2.0 this week but remember reading that sa-compile
will not work with SARE rules currently. If I understand it correctly when
using sa-compile it will be used for all rules so
21 matches
Mail list logo
