egalitarian folks that want to give an internet soapbox to
even the most shady amongst us! How horribly misunderstood they must be for
this veiled virtue!
-Philip
On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.10.2014 um 20:50 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions of
everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is the
impression I got from
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/2014 08:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
The issue we’ve been having with Blacklotus (self-appointed champions
of everyone’s right to be on the internet, no matter how shady, is
the impression I got from speaking
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
not exact what you want , but may help too
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
check_recipient_ns_access type:table
Search the specified access(5) database for
the same hash as part of
the phishing URL.
Anyone else seeing this?
I’m currently defeating this by locally blacklisting the 2 IP addresses
associated with the URL, plus finding the SHA1 in the message.
I’d like to not have to rely on the specific value of the hash for the 2nd test.
-Philip
On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:41 AM, David Jones djo...@ena.com wrote:
From: Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:30 PM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Googlasi, blacklotus, etc.
I’m seeing spams like
base doesn’t really contain a lot of useful examples.
Thanks,
-Philip
On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
header __KAM_PHIL1To =~ /phil\@example\.com/i
header __KAM_PHIL2Subject =~ /(?:CV|Curriculum)/i
Bonus points for using non-matching grouping. But major deduction of
points for that entirely un-anchored
for any help,
Christoph
Christoph,
There is a new feature in trunk that I believe will help you easily called
URILocalBL.pm
See https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7060
Philip, your thoughts?
Regards,
KAM
That should do it.
There’s a configuration example
You’d be wanting:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7068
BTW, you seriously need to update SpamAssassin. In the time since that version
came out, spammers have figured out how to defeat old countermeasures and come
up with new ways to hide SPAM.
On Aug 17, 2014, at 6:47
On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 07:01 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Paul Stead paul.st...@zeninternet.co.uk wrote:
On 06/08/14 20:00, John Hardin wrote:
Can some fresh samples be posted to pastebin?
http
uri_block_cidr will still defeat this, at least until he’s forced to switch
hosting providers.
On Aug 7, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Andy Balholm a...@balholm.com wrote:
This particular spammer just re-did the format of their emails, probably to
get around the rules that we’re working on. Do they
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 06:55 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 07:01 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Paul Stead paul.st
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:13 AM, emailitis.com i...@emailitis.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Philip Prindeville [mailto:philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com]
Sent: 07 August 2014 06:01
To: Paul Stead
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rule for repeated tracking numbers
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 07:06 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 06:55 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
Okay, I thought you were saying that the posted configuration would block the
entire CIDR range. It won’t.
So they have a lot of VirtualHost definitions: a couple of comments on that.
(1
://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7060
-Philip
On Aug 6, 2014, at 3:24 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Wed, August 6, 2014 16:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
MSPIKE = MailSpike RBL.
Without checking, you are running an old version of SA and the rules are
not valid on your installation so it's skipping them. It's
Saw the following SPAM:
http://pastebin.com/eLm1iRpN
Note that:
header From:name =~ /\.\d{7,8}$/
seems to detect it reliably. Easier than trying to detect the “notice” or
“ref.no.” etc. that some have at the end of the subject line.
On Aug 2, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
When you send an e-mail to yahoo's published abuse contact, you get back an
e-mail saying to report the issue at http://abuse.yahoo.com/. Now, I really
and truly hate people who think that you should do their job for them,
a Church admin… ;-)
-Philip
that is or will ever be…
-Philip
This is interesting. Never saw this before. Just got SPAM with an empty
calendar section:
_7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f6d_
Content-type: text/calendar; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
On Jul 29, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/29/2014 10:04 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
This is interesting. Never saw this before. Just got SPAM with an empty
calendar section:
_7068696c69707040726564666973682d736f6c7574696f6e732e636f6d_
Content-type: text
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Amir 'CG' Caspi ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
On 2014-07-02 15:04, Amir Caspi wrote:
For what it's worth, I just received a spam that basically is the same
as what Philip complained about. I've posted a spample here:
http://pastebin.com/Y2YGwL49
[...]
I'm
packager.
-Philip
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
On 2014-07-23 13:14, Axb wrote:
doesn't your VPS offer you shell access?
if yes, uninstall the SA rpm stuff and install SA 3.4 from source/trunk.
I think I didn't explain properly. I'm running the dedicated server on
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
On 2014-07-24 16:11, Philip Prindeville wrote:
You might have a shorter wait if you move to CentOS 6.5 instead.
I would, but the VPS software I'm using does not run on CentOS 6.x, only 5.x.
It's rather old software
could refuse to relay messages that didn’t originate directly from your
clients’ own machines.
-Philip
or
- actual spam which is being unwittingly sent out by compromised (or at least
poorly-secured) systems?
I see a LOT of that. The same spam email hits me multiple times from
. . .
Lordy, now I do feel old.
joe a.
Long live Multics and ITS!
-Philip
On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
On 7/7/2014 2:28 AM, John Wilcock wrote:
Le 05/07/2014 19:08, Philip Prindeville a écrit :
As for encoding a cyrillic small a: there are many ways to do this.
iso-8859-4, utf-8, jp2212, gb2312, win1252, etc. I don’t think
—there are just too many charsets possible.
-Philip
such a beast would be susceptible to reflector attacks from
spoofed addresses… so it’s a dumb question.
Unless it cached a response and you had to click on a link to see the results
instead…
-Philip
I got the following MIME body part below, and I’m wondering if it would make
sense to filter on this as well.
Given that it’s text/plain with an implicit charset=“us-ascii” and an implicit
content-transfer-encoding of 7bit, the sequence #x[0-9A-F]{4} doesn’t really
parse into a 16-bit
On Jul 2, 2014, at 12:37 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Given that it’s text/plain with an implicit charset=“us-ascii” and an
implicit content-transfer-encoding of 7bit, the sequence #x[0-9A-F]{4}
doesn’t really parse into a 16-bit
Okay, was tinkering with the code below but the zero-width lookahead is not
disqualifying ampersand followed by #x[0-9A-F]{4}; so the output is bogus (you
can run this and see what I mean).
What am I doing wrong?
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use warnings;
use strict;
my $data = __EOF__;
Th#x0435;
On Jul 2, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 14:44 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Okay, was tinkering with the code below but the zero-width lookahead is
not disqualifying ampersand followed by #x[0-9A-F]{4}; so the output
is bogus
On Jun 27, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:30 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
As I mentioned before, the real violation is in the previous mime
section, which claims 7bit, but contains octets with the high
Contains a URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
tflags L_URIBL_BLACK net
score L_URIBL_BLACK4.95
But like I said, the canned rules should already include URIBL_BLACK.
-Philip
On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:30 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
As I mentioned before, the real violation is in the previous mime
section, which claims 7bit, but contains octets with the high-bit set.
Yup. Just submitted a patch for this:
On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:29 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:21:33 -0600
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Here’s the other thing I don’t get.
The message claims to be 7-bit and text/plain, yet it uses encoded
characters which exceed 7-bit widths yet this doesn’t
On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:47 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Including 6 distinct UUID’s would seem to be useful. Including the same
UUID 6 times seems broken.
Perhaps a pattern like:
body /((;[A-F0-9]{8}-[A-F0-9]{4}-[A-F0-9]{4
On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:02 PM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:29 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:21:33 -0600
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Here’s the other thing I don’t get.
The message claims to be 7
On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:31 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:47 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
That still doesn't hit *only* the same GUID repeated. Try this:
rawbody L_REPEATING_UUIDS /a href
I was surprised that my SPAM filters didn’t find this.
Not sure what code page it’s using… whatever 0x04xx is in… what? Is this UTF-8?
There’s no explicit charset given.
Also, I noticed that a lot of these types of SPAMs have ‘b’ replaced by
cyrillic soft sound, i.e. the word “about” is
in an
individual mime part.
It doesn’t do me any good if there’s one text/plain section that is 7bit,
followed by another text/html section that’s “base64” which fires the
BODY_8BITS rule too.
On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
I was surprised
On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 03:07 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Anyone have rules to catch these they could point me at? Or any empirical
evidence about how successful they’ve been with such?
Wouldn't use this for a rule unless you meta
On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 10:21 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
http://pastebin.com/qLyKx40b
This paste has been removed! :(
I’ve temporarily posted it on ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/harp.eml
Here’s what I’m showing it matched
On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 10:37 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 03:07 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Anyone have rules to catch these they could point me at? Or any
-92D1-F13D501596B7SPAN
style=VISIBILITY: hidden/SPAN/A
and the style=“VISIBILITY: hidden” is also dubious (why would normal mail have
hidden text???).
Anyone have rules to catch these they could point me at? Or any empirical
evidence about how successful they’ve been with such?
Thanks,
-Philip
What's the best place to get a module reviewed for inclusion into a future
version of SA, or to discuss possible core changes to SA?
Thanks,
-Philip
On Jun 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
Okay, might have a module ready to test.
Here’s what I came up with.
I should probably add uri_block_isp as well, but this is more problematic.
It requires a licensed database which the user may
On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:27 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Axb wrote:
On 06/09/2014 10:46 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I’d like to add a plugin
database without network access, it
could happen synchronously…
Thanks,
-Philip
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
On 06/06/2014 11:32 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove the
):
http://mab
On Jun 9, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/2014 11:03 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
On 06/06/2014 11:32 PM, Philip Prindeville
On Jun 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Axb wrote:
On 06/09/2014 10:46 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I’d like to add a plugin (and eventually share it once the bugs are
out) that uses either Net::CIDR::Lite to allow manual entry of
IP-based
On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:25 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove
the ):
http://mabsut.com/20220362/vuxtxumsrnsst6unlornt3umtfuwznvv
.
Is there an easy way to do a domain lookup on the host portion of the URL and
then filter it if it’s in this subnet?
Thanks,
-Philip
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
Here’s a prototype:
http://ur1.ca/hgxkx
On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 18:34 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm trying to write a rule that gives some spamminess score to messages
received from any host that resolves to protection.outlook.com.
I tried to use
I'm trying to write a rule that gives some spamminess score to messages
received from any host that resolves to protection.outlook.com.
I tried to use _REMOTEHOSTNAME_ to do this, but I think I got the header syntax
wrong.
Can someone set me straight?
Thanks,
-Philip
and there are no headers in it.
What am I misunderstanding or what have I overlooked?
Thanks.
Philip
Thanks, Karsten, for your explanation. That makes sense and I'll have to
see whether the lack of headers is going to cause problems going forwards
or if looking in syslog will suffice.
Regards
Philip
On 26 September 2013 16:33, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.dewrote:
On Thu, 2013
it would be ideal for doing
approximate matches.
http://search.cpan.org/~jhi/String-Approx-3.26/Approx.pm
-Philip
On 2/7/11 1:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidellmichael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
It's also
587 forces a
different rule than 25 does.
This can't be forged.
-Philip
detection system, that watches for bursty outbound traffic patterns,
like a sudden spike in outbound SMTP or HTTP connections to a wide spread of
addresses.
-Philip
It's been released for F13 and F14. And of course, it's upstream on CPAN.
It's the promotion of the development version 1.18_81 to production.
.
Is Aruba.it so poorly reputed?
g
I can't speak for their reputation, but when an entire ISP's CIDR blocks get
blacklisted (like we did with iWeb.ca) it's usually because they aren't very
responsive in dealing with issues when they occur and not proactive about
trying to prevent them.
-Philip
the '@' to a '.' as is the format still used in SOA
records.
Not just SOA records, but the MB records were supposed to use this as well.
They just never caught on.
-Philip
recourse if we need to).
I figured out that:
ird.yahoo.com = Ireland
tp2.yahoo.com = Taipei
sp2.yahoo.com = Spain
Anyone know what the entirety of domains are for Yahoo?
Thanks,
-Philip
On 11/10/10 11:39 AM, John Williams wrote:
No on my server I have a hard requirement to run SELinux. I cannot turn that
off. I find that when i enable SA with SELinux turned on, my CPU rate sky
rockets eventually forcing my system to stop responding. I've seen this thread
several times
:21 PST
if (/ via HTTP$//^\[(${IP_ADDRESS})\] by (\S+) via HTTP$/) {
$ip = $1; $by = $2; goto enough;
}
(I note that HTTP$ seldom matches, by the way, since all of my examples have via
HTTP;date instead.)
Is it worth having an explicit rule for this?
Thanks,
-Philip
/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=32362
and represents a defect in Socket6. The work-around is to include Socket
before Socket6.
-Philip
On 11/8/10 5:58 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Philip,
Thanks for your off-list reply. Unfortunately I cannot
reply, as your mailer is refusing connections:
$ host -t mx redfish-solutions.com
redfish-solutions.com mail is handled by 10 mail.redfish-solutions.com.
$ telnet -s mail4.ijs.si
On 11/2/10 7:35 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
One suggestion: currently it is not possible to store 0 and 1
as a data item associated with each net, because a 0 is treated
the same as undef and replaced by the key.
And the AF_NET6 argument to new() needs to be documented in a POD.
Thanks for your
On 11/7/10 9:19 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Try the following patch. If it works for you, I'll rerelease as 1.19:
Actually, I released it as Net-Patricia-1.18_01
On 10/29/10 9:18 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 10/29/10 12:11 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Sure, go ahead, can't hurt. The patch is now in the SA trunk.
Is it worth opening a ticket and putting it into the 3.3 branch too?
Mark
looks like Freebsd ports has an older version, so it should be
in libopie. [10:05]
Correctly sanity-check a buffer length in nfs mount. [10:06]
- --
-
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollu...@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
VP Apache
On 5/26/10 11:06 AM, Mikael Syska wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
Anyone else seeing the following in their cron logs:
http: GEThttp://yerp.org:8080/rules/stage/330948267.tar.gz request failed:
500 Can't connect
On 02/01/2010 05:35 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On Saturday January 30 2010 21:16:01 Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
Also, how come the eval block:
unless (eval require $thing) {...}
doesn't contain a terminating ';', i.e.:
eval require $thing; instead?
It is not needed. It is an 'eval
On 01/30/2010 12:24 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 12:16 -0800, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
I ran yum update on my FC11 machine a couple of days ago, and now I'm
getting nightly cron errors:
Would be nice and maybe even helpful to know, what command(s
;
}
doesn't contain a terminating ';', i.e.:
eval require $thing; instead?
Thanks,
-Philip
see how it goes, and I'll try to keep the list current.
Keep your fingers crossed.
-Philip
On 11/30/2009 03:15 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 27.11.09 14:04, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
for the ruleset:
header __L_UNDISCLOSED1 To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
just FYI, sendmail can be configured to do different things when To: is
missing
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
undisclosed recipients is used for Bcc: mail
I used
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
header __L_UNDISCLOSED1 To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
Just how do I go about figuring out what the To:raw value is (for
example)?
header __TO_RAW To:raw =~ /.+/
If you're analyzing something that may
, Perl 5.10.0, and
Sendmail 8.14.3)
Thanks,
-Philip
On 11/23/2009 12:10 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Hi.
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
I went round and round with this a while back.
SA 3.25 has a problem with perl null vs 0
On 11/23/2009 12:18 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
but as you say, if it can't tell the difference between and undef,
then that's an issue.
use header ALL to check for a \nCC
(which could be blank)
or just use your MTA to reject it at SMTPtime
On 11/23/2009 05:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com
wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
What's Cc: have to do
On 11/23/2009 05:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:05, Philip Prindeville
philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com
wrote:
I want to block all messages that I'm getting that have:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
with no Cc: line.
What's Cc: have to do
everyone else made their peace with this?
Thanks,
-Philip
was a conversation we had way back in 2006 about SA 3.1 and bug
4255. There was a TVD.pm in discussion, so I assume that's the plugin
in question.
It appears to have become HTTPSMismatch.pm, already included as a
standard plugin in SA 3.2 and beyond. :)
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Philip
I upgraded from FC8 to FC9 recently, and spamassassin could no longer
find TVD.pm after I deprecated the old Perl install.
Where does TVD.pm currently live?
Thanks,
-Philip
yep, I like that!... :)
# whois microsoft.com
MICROSOFT.COM.ZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.Z.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.Z.DOWNLOAD.MOVIE.ONLINE.ZML2.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
?
How do you name him to the various RBL's?
I suppose I could sign up for spamcop.net... Which S/X/RBL would be most
effective in this case?
Thanks,
-Philip
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Depends on whether you equate bare domains with URL's, I suppose.
If MUA's equate them with URLs, spammers will use this, and
SpamAssassin will use
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
There is an RFC that defines what a URL looks like. A bare domain
doesn't cut it.
You want to forbid bare domains in email? Go ahead. You can forbid
anything you like.
I don't, and I doubt Matt wants to either.
But don't
101 - 200 of 385 matches
Mail list logo
