Matt Kettler wrote:
Any interpretation that it was intended to in any way define a list, is
a misinterpretation. There's no undefined pointer, because there's no
pointer.
... ...
The modified entry merely states that support for all these RBLs is
built-in, but it leaves
Matt Kettler wrote:
By All of the free BL services are enabled by default. I believe the
original author was not trying to say SA supported all BL services, but
that all of the free ones it does support are enabled by default.
So... it said that all of a *undefined list* are used? That's a
Jo Rhett wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
By All of the free BL services are enabled by default. I believe the
original author was not trying to say SA supported all BL services, but
that all of the free ones it does support are enabled by default.
So... it said that all of a *undefined list* are
JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of no false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue as always to encourage my users to check their tagged mail before tossing it.
IMHO
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The
customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of
no false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue
as always to encourage my users to check their tagged
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
IMHO if a rule is getting legit email tagged as SPAM it should be toned
down. Obeying the RFC's is a good thing, but I am trying to tune our spam
filter to filter spam, not to be a netcop.
Then you should disable these BLs in your configuration.
Don't suggest to
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
IMHO if a rule is getting legit email tagged as SPAM it should be toned
down. Obeying the RFC's is a good thing, but I am trying to tune our
spam filter to filter spam, not to be a netcop. Our particular contact
seems to have gotten onto rfc-ignorant's list because it
On the walk the way you talk point, I have edited the DNSBL wiki page
to include a list of all the DNSBLs in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf, instead of the
previous comment about all of the public DNSBLs which isn't really true.
This could probably use some more editing, so everyone is encouraged to
fix
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The
customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of no
false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue as
always to encourage my users to check their tagged
Jo Rhett wrote:
On the walk the way you talk point, I have edited the DNSBL wiki
page to include a list of all the DNSBLs in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf, instead
of the previous comment about all of the public DNSBLs which isn't
really true.
This could probably use some more editing, so everyone is
John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to content. It flags
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
I got two HAM messages
with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
Thanks for proving my point.
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
I got two HAM messages
with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
John Andersen wrote:
Thanks
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
I got two HAM messages
with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
Thanks
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE
The rules in question almost by definition don't address spam, they
address whether people are peeved at how hard it is to contact a
domain's postmaster. Which is why I dispute the score attached to them.
I've also been annoyed by Yahoo FPs based on the RFCI list. However:
1) In my
John D. Hardin writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
For the purposes of SpamAssassin, it only matters if spam is
filtered and ham is let through. As I keep harping on, I don't
think it's SpamAssassin's job to crusade for abuse@/postmaster@
compliance.
The rules in
On Friday 13 October 2006 00:23, Justin Mason wrote:
John D. Hardin writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
For the purposes of SpamAssassin, it only matters if spam is
filtered and ham is let through. As I keep harping on, I don't
think it's SpamAssassin's job to crusade for
Justin Mason wrote:
OTOH, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, and DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS will
likely not make it into the next release going by those rates.
Thank-you very kindly for your work.
I apologize (to all) for any overzealousness on my part. I realize I
addressed the issue on a
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE NAME
3.7247 0.0540 0.986 0.85
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE NAME
3.7247
John Rudd wrote:
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE
Benny Pedersen wrote:
why do you care about it ?
after all its not your domain :-)
I care because:
A) All mail into my domain is filtered through SpamAssassin with a
milter - including mail that goes to postmaster and abuse. Not that my
little domain gets much on either address, but from
On Thursday 12 October 2006 00:20, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
The kind of score being added to every
one of their messages is out-of-line with the seriousness of missing a
couple of rfc addresses.
I agree. Especially when Yahoo has published methods for reporting
spam and abuse even if they are not
John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the one hand they (apache.org) refuses mail from perfectly RFC compliant
Linux boxes insisting you send through your ISP, and then they refuse mail
from the ISP because ONE spammer in some backwater managed to get one
piece of spam into some spamtrap
Kurt Fitzner wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
why do you care about it ?
after all its not your domain :-)
I care because:
A) All mail into my domain is filtered through SpamAssassin with a
milter - including mail that goes to postmaster and abuse. Not that my
little domain gets much on either
On the one hand they (apache.org) refuses mail from perfectly RFC compliant
Linux boxes insisting you send through your ISP, and then they refuse mail
from the ISP because ONE spammer in some backwater managed to get one
piece of spam into some spamtrap somewhere.
You assume (incorrectly)
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He has a problem with
rfc-ignorant being strict in their interpretation of the RFC
requirements. It's not mail to *his*
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 12 October 2006 00:20, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
?The kind of score being added to every
one of their messages is out-of-line with the seriousness of missing a
couple of rfc addresses.
I agree. Especially when Yahoo has published methods
John D. Hardin wrote:
But if the stated purpose of the BL is this domain does not have a
working postmaster address then it's unreasonable to ask them to
exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no
matter how large or popular that domain is.
My concern is the score
Kurt Fitzner wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
But if the stated purpose of the BL is this domain does not have a
working postmaster address then it's unreasonable to ask them to
exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no
matter how large or popular that domain is.
My
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue.
Nope.
I wasn't replying to the larger issue in that message. I was replying
to the specific issue
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue.
Nope.
I wasn't replying to the larger issue in
John D. Hardin wrote:
That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's
abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I
do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it
will keep people from reporting abuse of your systems to you.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's
abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I
do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it
will keep people
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:25, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
The purpose of SpamAssassin is not to punish domains without working
postmaster addresses. It is not to act as RFC cops. It is to detect
spam. Let's not lose sight of the goal because some BL list has gone on
a crusade to police
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to content. It flags ham with the same
From: John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:25, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
The purpose of SpamAssassin is not to punish domains without working
postmaster addresses. It is not to act as RFC cops. It is to detect
spam. Let's not lose sight of the goal because some BL list has
From: John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to
I just upgraded from 3.0.2 to 3.1.7 today, as I noticed the amount of
spam getting through was increasing lately. Very soon after my upgrade,
I received email from someone on yahoo and checked the spam score to see
what the new version was doing. Here it is:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1
On Wed, October 11, 2006 11:32, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
Those are very high scores attributed to domains that blocked a
postmaster@ or who's whois is private. I can understand some people
being RFC purists, but this seems a little extreme.
why do you care about it ?
after all its not your
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Fitzner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:32 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Concerned with scores for from rfc-ignorant.org
I just upgraded from 3.0.2 to 3.1.7 today, as I noticed the
amount of spam getting through
42 matches
Mail list logo
