jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com
Sent: Friday, 2010/January/22 13:58
Generally I'm paid to protect my customers from fraud scams. Does
that include fraud scams that are advertised on TV? The Experian/Free
Credit Report is such a scam and I was personally ripped off by them
Alex wrote:
Hi,
This is a tricky decision. What they Free Credit Report / Experian is doing
is fraudulent. Although they aren't stealing they way phishers are, just
Have they ever been prosecuted or fined for this fraud?
What are the mail servers and address information they use?
Generally I'm paid to protect my customers from fraud scams. Does that
include fraud scams that are advertised on TV? The Experian/Free Credit
Report is such a scam and I was personally ripped off by them and I'm
thinking about blocking their email. What they do isn't any different
than a 419
MySQL has changed. I think there's a script called mysql-upgrade that
you need to run.
Casartello, Thomas wrote:
I recently updated my machine from Fedora 11 to Fedora 12 and I
noticed Bayes has stopped working. Couldn't get anything revealing
from Spamassassin --D --lint . I use Mysql
. Casartello, Jr.
Staff Assistant - Wireless/Linux Administrator
Information Technology
Wilson 105A
Westfield State College
Red Hat Certified Technician (RHCT)
*From:* Marc Perkel [mailto:m...@perkel.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:46 AM
*To:* Casartello, Thomas
*Cc:* users
I'm not seeing any yet but expecting it soon.
Fixed
Michael Monnerie wrote:
Another FP on hostkarma:
bsmtp5.bon.at[195.3.86.187]
Please investigate and fix. And put them on YELLOW, they are an ISP here
in Austria. Please check bsmtp[1-9] also.
Christian Brel wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:35:37 +0100
Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at wrote:
Another FP on hostkarma:
bsmtp5.bon.at[195.3.86.187]
Please investigate and fix. And put them on YELLOW, they are an ISP
here in Austria. Please check bsmtp[1-9] also.
For what it's worth my Lunk Email Filter service block 100% of virus
generated spam such as this pill image spam. But anyone can tap into
this for free by doing 2 things.
First - add tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com as you highest numbered MX record.
Second - use the hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
Thanks - however I don't guarantee that kind of response time. :)
Greg Troxel wrote:
Lest people think I object to all whitelists, I'd like to point out that
tonight I got spam from reachmail.net that was listed in HOSTKARMA_WL.
I sent it off to supp...@junkemailfilter.com and SEVEN AND A HALF
Can we call this the Y2010 bug? :)
I was just thinking back 10 years ago today wondering if there would be
a 2010 related date bug.
Charles Gregory wrote:
Holy !!!
I am SO glad that I read my e-mail first thing this morning!
THANKS for spotting this!
- Charles
On
Jason Haar wrote:
On 12/17/2009 03:30 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Then the third filed is NONE. That's how I do it. But the idea is
that any kind of daya can be collectively gathered and distributed.
Instead of a TCP channel (which means software), what about using DNS?
If the SA clients did
Res wrote:
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
the day it is, is the day I look elsewhere.
Why shouldn't white lists become part of SA? Blacklists are part of SA.
My hostkarma whitelists are one of the things that keeps me in business
because my false positive rates are
I found a bug in the way my Hostkarna blacklist generates the list which
led to some false positives. There are servers that look like spammers
sometimes but lomg term data and white listing and nobl listing was
supposed to keep these servers off our black list. However what was
happening is
I have an idea for a cooperative data gathering project and it's similar
to what we at Junk Email Filter are doing internally. The idea to that a
number of you on the list who run a large spam filtering operation send
one line messages reporting IP addresses with a key word like spam, ham,
or
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
I found the text only list and I originally had it set to just
spamassassin.org rather that spamassassin.apache.org so this should
help those on the list reading their email with a KSR33 teletype on a
110 baud acoustic modem use
Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 16/12/2009 15:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have an idea for a cooperative data gathering project and it's similar
to what we at Junk Email Filter are doing internally. The idea to that a
number of you on the list who run a large spam filtering operation send
one line
jdow wrote:
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:49
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/asr33.shtml
There was actually a time when I had one of those in my house.
For your amusement:
I
Then the third filed is NONE. That's how I do it. But the idea is that
any kind of daya can be collectively gathered and distributed.
R-Elists wrote:
marc,
what if there is no RDNS ?
;-)
- rh
Get a modern email client.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mark, can you *please* stop sending HTML-only messages to the list?
Kai
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Clarification: I, for one, was only proposing that the whitelisting
plugins and rules that query external databases are removed from the
standard ruleset and sa_update and placed in a separate library of
optional rules.
My reasons for making this suggestion are:
-
LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Dec-2009, at 06:11, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mark, can you *please* stop sending HTML-only messages to the list?
And just in case the response is "no one else complains"
Yes. Stop doing this. Bad list subscriber. Bad! Bad!
Get a modern email
If you can't handle HTML then filter it on your end.
I found the text only list and I originally had it set to just
spamassassin.org rather that spamassassin.apache.org so this should help
those on the list reading their email with a KSR33 teletype on a 110
baud acoustic modem use less paper when reading their email.
Christian Brel wrote:
Last week the blackhats that make up the '$pamAssassin PMC' sought to
silence people who object to paid whitelists appearing in the core
program which seek to give advantage to certain ESP's. vocal in the odd
behaviour of the program. Namely those listed in whitelist
LuKreme wrote:
On 14-Dec-2009, at 07:59, Bill Landry wrote:
Christian Brel, AKA "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" (among other aliases), is
back…
Ah, that explains the tone and typo pattern of that email.
While I am suspicious of emailreg.org and Barracuda's ties to each
Rob McEwen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I see no reason that everything has to be free. Ultimately we all have
to eat and we do something to make a living.
There are people in the world who are both ethical and financially
successful. So if someone is doing something right
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per registered
domain, purportedly
Bob O'Brien wrote:
I am the whitelist guy at Barracuda, so I work with them.
In my opinion, the $20 fee should be considered more like a CAPTCHA.
It's not simple pay to play either. Reports get investigated, and
delistings can happen. As I'm sure many of the volunteers here are
all too
Rob McEwen wrote:
Bob O'Brien wrote:
But I have to say (and this is just my personal opinion) that all the
people shouting "conspiracy!" (even if joking about it) may have done
irreparable harm to the potential for corporations (not just Barracuda)
supporting this community in
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2009 Marc Perkel wrote:
Every list is imperfect. In this case there were about 10 hits on the
hi MX record and they didn't use QUIT to close the connection.
Generally this indicates a virus. If they had used QUIT they
wouldn't
Kevin Golding wrote:
In article 4b226758.90...@perkel.com, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com
writes
If you have any other domain names for me to list let me know. I'm
always looking to expand my white lists.
shop.marksandspencer.com is one I always see hitting black
Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
really good white list. Anyone else using it?
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
Here's the situation.
It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
languages you want and it returns many possibilities so as not to
trigger unwanted
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 08:55 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Except for very short messages I would think that if you spell checked
the message in several languages and found that 80% was spelled
correctly that you have a match. You wouldn't have to check every
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
On 07.12.09 12:23, Charles
R-Elists wrote:
perkel wrote:
I have yet to find ANY use for SPF. And
SPF causes nothing but problems.
Marc,
why nothing but problems?
is a lot of your system "mail
forward" orientated?
care to elaboratew/o going into
thesame old SPF diatribe?
maybe
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
i dont know if it require code changes to do this, but it make sense
for me atleast to make it, no ?
objection,
I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
Here's the situation.
It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
languages you want and it returns many possibilities so as not to
trigger unwanted falsely.
What I'm doing is extracting the language
Are there any rules to determine what language a message is in?
by default.
On Dec 5, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
Are there any rules to determine what language a message is in?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On tir 01 dec 2009 02:16:04 CET, wrote
I believe Raymond's response was addressing the fact a server
connection could possibly be interrupted before it had a chance to
issue the SMTP QUIT command. I would think being listed for that
Michael Monnerie wrote:
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php?ip=80.245.199.162
I removed that IP now, in order to let pass mail through. But please
check it. It seems you easily blacklist a host that connects to your
tarbaby MX, but we had a network outage on our primary MX which
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are only as good as the data submitted by
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to
RW wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:05:25 +0100
Jonas Eckerman jonas_li...@frukt.org wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I don't know if it will be useful but I made a short URL provider
list that is DNS readable.
Thanks. That could be usuable in my
Does SA support host name based black/white lists? I suppose to do it
right you might have to pick a specific received line to get the host
that sent you the email, do FCrDNS, and then do the lookup.
Is something like this available? I'm doing it in Exim on my system, but
Exim has the host
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
The races!
Big upset for Baracudda as Spamhaus takes back the #1 position and Spam
Eating Monkey comes in second. (I don't count apews) Hostkarma pulls
ahead of Uceprotect who have been running neck and neck for 5th and 6th
place.
Fixed
Michael Monnerie wrote:
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php?ip=62.40.128.130
Just received this FP from a customer. That IP is indeed an MX for
kabsi.at, a big cable provider in Austria. Please put it on YELLOW.
mfg zmi
To catch this:
In order to confirm you Web-Mail identity, you are to provide the
following data;
First Name:
Last Name:
Username/ID:
Password:
Date of Birth:
Affirm your willingness and cooperation please, by replying me stating
your FULL NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, TELEPHONE NUMBER, FAX NUMBER, and
R-Elists wrote:
I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's
close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and
the opt out works.
marc,
we shouldnt have to opt out...
-rh
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a
very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies,
was sent through
One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have
different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different
values as to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my
business if I block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting
through. I am
Tara Natanson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hello,
I work for Constant Contact. We take reports
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I just started using Katz's wiki rules and it brought HOSTKARMA with it.
I have not yet seen any blacklists of HOSTKARMA, but the whitelists are
there.
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
9RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:25:36AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I just started using Katz's wiki rules and it brought HOSTKARMA with it.
I have not yet seen any blacklists of HOSTKARMA, but the whitelists are
there.
RANK
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
14.10.2009 19:17, R-Elists kirjoitti:
All I can say is that if these numbers were real or typical I
would be out of business.
perkel,
i might be wrong, yet it doesnt appear to me that Jari have enough mail
volume to have a reasonable statistical base...
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Jari,
How did you produce the great looking statistics?
Thanks,
Rick
It's a perl script called sa-stats.pl
I tried not google it for you, but could not find the original. Many
scripts with the same name though..
I put that to my server as
Title: RE: SA needs a new paradigm for rule structure
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:t...@ipinc.net]
Sent: 2009-10-10 02:40
To: Marc Perkel
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SA
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of:
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score)
Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
planet. I'm surprised no one is
testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of black lists. Doing white
lists is actually easier than doing
black lists
Warren Togami wrote:
The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal
rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora.
HOSTKARMA and SEM are new. Hopefully these masscheck results can help
to identify problems so list quality can improve over time.
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I've brought this idea up over the years but I'll try to explain it
in a different way. Maybe we can do this with a lot of meta rules.
What we need are rules that combine a lot of simple rules into
concepts and then combine those rules into rules
I'm thinking about starting a service to filter spam on outgoing email.
I was wondering if anyone has any experience doing this and has some
advice on how to do it. These customers will be businesses, not freemail
customers, and one of the only real threats is if someone gets hacked or
has
RW wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:40:01 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
I know that it seems like the idea of building up "meta" rules with
a lot of small rules will give you a more accurate hit rate, but
this is one of those non-intuitive things that can be shown
Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/10/2009 11:27 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm thinking about starting a service to filter spam on outgoing email.
I was wondering if anyone has any experience doing this and has some
advice on how to do it. These customers will be businesses, not freemail
customers
Starting to write some SA rules again. What is the syntax for a rule
where it's true if two other rules are both true? Need a small example.
Thanks in advance
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Starting to write some SA rules again. What is the syntax for a rule
where it's true if two other rules are both true? Need a small example.
meta NAME (rule1 rule2)
It's essentially Perl logical expression syntax, and basic math
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
It's essentially Perl logical expression syntax, and basic math
expression syntax if you want to count:
meta NAME rule1 (rule2a + rule2b + rule2c + rule2d 2)
When adding rules is it a count of the number of rules or the rule
I've brought this idea up over the years but I'll try to explain it in a
different way. Maybe we can do this with a lot of meta rules.
What we need are rules that combine a lot of simple rules into concepts
and then combine those rules into rules that score - and score big. As
an example,
Karsten Brckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 08:14 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've brought this idea up over the years but I'll try to explain it in a
different way. Maybe we can do this with a lot of meta rules.
What we need are rules that combine a lot of simple rules
Jon Trulson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Our white list is supposed to be a source of pure good email. So if
spam comes for any of the white listed IPs then it's an error.
Whose? Yours or theirs?
Meaning
In the last week I've put a lot of effort into improving the accuracy of
my white lists. Especially for those of you who are critical of the
accuracy of hostkarma white list I'd like you all to test it now and
tell me how it works now. I have to admit that I have been less
motivated in the
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
Our white list is supposed to be a source of pure good email. So if
spam comes for any of the white listed IPs then it's an error.
Whose? Yours or theirs?
Meaning: is a single spam reason for an IP to be dropped from the
hostkarma
Warren Togami wrote:
http://spameatingmonkey.com
Anyone have any experience using these DNSBL and URIBL's?
Is anyone from this site on this list?
I wonder if we should add these rules to the sandbox for masschecks as
well.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
I've been using them for a
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, RW wrote:
However, if you want to be understood you need to speak the Lingua
Franca. If you choose to use a term differently than everyone else
you WILL be misunderstood and corrected.
If everyone calls an apple an orange, then yeah, it's an
SM wrote:
Hi Marc,
At 09:32 30-09-2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations.
I have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what
it takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what
I described sounds like
Updated that as well.
R-Elists wrote:
marc
dont forget this one
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MarcPerkelsExperiments
- rh
From:
Marc Perkel [mailto:m...@perkel.com]
snip
Yes - the wiki is updated.
R-Elists wrote:
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL Yellow
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BR Brown
OTOH, I really like these new names. My brain thinks less
hard to recognize them.
How do other people feel. Should we stick to his old names
with JMF in the
I like it.
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR
Let's go with it.
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 08:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names or the
above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
- is the BL in question (which ever it may be)
LuKreme wrote:
On 29-Sep-2009, at 23:41, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
Slow
Blaine Fleming wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I like it.
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR
Let's go with it.
Marc, have you updated your wiki to reflect the new rules? I think that
will pretty well settle any debate
then you can skip all other IP testing because the
IP address tells you nothing about if it is or isn't spam.
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 10:07 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like to keep the name HOSTKARMA as standard.
If that's so, then we probably want that in the spamassassin rule
name
MySQL Student wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully my comment isn't out of place with the current discussion of
JMF/Hostkarma. I think this is not only a really bad default score,
but it should be reduced to -0.5 or perhaps not used at all.
I have a money/fraud email that hit RCVD_IN_JMF_W that passed
Blaine Fleming wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
My NoBL list is similar to yellow except that you can skip black list
lookup but maybe might be whitelisted somewhere.
I keep seeing IPs that are on both the NoBL *and* the blacklist. An
example of this 89.206.179.213
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma white
list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP or host name) I
could probable clean out the bad entries in the white list pretty quick.
I will go along with the consensus of the group.
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules
copied from your site. It will be confusing to them if
we change the official name. Some will accidentally have
your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:50 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from
your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name.
Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
Warren Togami wrote:
On 07/09/2009 09:57 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth I'm now ahead of Barracuda on Jeff Makey's blacklist
comparison chart. Not a scientific comparison but it's about all there
is to compare blacklists. Now only abuseat.org and spamhaus have me
beat. (apews
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 01:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
On 07/09/2009 09:57 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth I'm now ahead of Barracuda on Jeff Makey's
blacklist
comparison chart. Not a scientific comparison but it's about all there
is to compare
This should be easy but I'm missing something. I have a RBL list (dnset)
for host testbl.junkemailfilter.com
:2:Test
.xx.host.example.com :4:
.host.example.com :3:
.example.com :9:
.com :6:
Works fine. But - I want to create an A record for
testbl.junkemailfilter.com of 65.49.42.100. How do
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 01:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd be interested in how well it worked. Is there anything I need to do
to help?
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists
Could you provide a URL redirector to this page? This URL is very
long. Perhaps
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 06:53 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 01:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd be interested in how well it worked. Is there anything I need
to do
to help?
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists
Could you provide
I'm giving away a free MX backup service so that if your server goes
down our servers will store and forward your email. You will also get
some spam reduction especially from virus bots. Setup is automatic and
all you have to do is change your MX records. Here's the instructions:
So - what ever happened to this project? Was it finished?
decoder wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I don't see any need for the model to be dynamic. Periodic
recalculation of it should be just fine. I bet even daily
reprocessing will prove to be over zealous. Weekly, perhaps even
monthly.
This is
Trying to write a how-to type article about setting up email servers
correctly with an eye on avoiding getting blocked by spam filters.
Here's what I have so far.
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Keeping_Your_Server_Off_Black_Lists
Looking for more ideas and suggestions to make this
One of the tricks spammers do is send to the backup servers first
because they often have less filtering. If you want I have a free MX
backup service that helps me harvest those bots. Here's a couple of
solutions:
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Project_tarbaby
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
I have to agree with LuKreme, my overnight had 446 blocked prior to RBL,
and only 387 by RBL. Again, noted that 'Barracuda' missed 43, 35 of
these Spamhaus caught - so for me Spamhaus is still better than
Barracuda. Also, I was sat in on a phone conference at
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably good to me. I
don't really count apews myself since they are
301 - 400 of 1043 matches
Mail list logo
