From: hospice...@outlook.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Detecting very recently registered domain names
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:45:07 +
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:26:08 +
From
On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:45 AM, hospice admin hospice...@outlook.com wrote:
... its not like NOMINET give a darn about spam, is it??
Nominet are arguably one of the few registrars that very much do care about
spam, AFAIK. I know several staffers and former staffers who job it was to deal
with
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:02:39 -0500
Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than
two months old. Is there a good way to detect this automatically?
We've thought about whois, but do not want to get blocked for looking
like we are
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:26:08 +
From: andrew.he...@aaisp.net.uk
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Detecting very recently registered domain names
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:02:39 -0500
Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
We are noticing
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:26:08 +
From: andrew.he...@aaisp.net.uk
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Detecting very recently registered domain names
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:02:39 -0500
Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
We are noticing
On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:45 AM, hospice admin hospice...@outlook.com wrote:
... its not like NOMINET give a darn about spam, is it??
Nominet are arguably one of the few registrars that very much do care about
spam, AFAIK. I know several staffers and former staffers who job it was to deal
with
Going back to the OP of this thread after some thinking:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than two
months old. Is there a good way to detect this automatically?
We've thought about whois, but do
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than two
months old. Is there a good way to detect this automatically?
We've thought about whois, but do not want to get blocked for looking
like we are harvesting information.
Regards,
JMQ
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
Isn't that where Kevin works too? Couldn't you just walk down the hall
and ask him? lol
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than two
months old. Is there a good way to detect this automatically?
According to this thread of five years ago, that RBL is not very well
maintained. I wonder if that's still the case?
(http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/New-Day-old-Bread-list-trick-td52989.html)
There also don't appear to be any alternative RBLs that provide a
similar list. I might
On 19/12/13 15:50, Joe Quinn wrote:
According to this thread of five years ago, that RBL is not very well
maintained. I wonder if that's still the case?
(http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/New-Day-old-Bread-list-trick-td52989.html)
There also don't appear to be any alternative RBLs that
W dniu 19.12.2013 16:13, Alex pisze:
Hi,
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote:
Isn't that where Kevin works too? Couldn't you just walk down the hall
and ask him? lol
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than two
months old.
Joe Quinn skrev den 2013-12-19 16:02:
We are noticing a lot of spam coming from domains that are less than
two months old. Is there a good way to detect this automatically?
We've thought about whois, but do not want to get blocked for looking
like we are harvesting information.
maybe make a
Marcin Mirosław skrev den 2013-12-19 17:47:
I've noticed false positives in last days in this rule.
1.5 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old
Bread)
[URIs: imageshack.us]
add this domain to uribl_skip_domains
dont be fool :)
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Marcin Mirosław skrev den 2013-12-19 17:47:
I've noticed false positives in last days in this rule.
1.5 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old
Bread)
[URIs: imageshack.us]
add this domain
John Hardin skrev den 2013-12-19 18:31:
You shouldn't have to do that.
one should not complain either :)
hard to be right :(
On 12/19/2013 10:13 AM, Alex wrote:
Isn't that where Kevin works too? Couldn't you just walk down the hall
and ask him? lol
:-) I'm trying to get more people involved in the project.
Speaking of which, I published the crash course on email / spam at
Am 19.12.2013 18:48, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 12/19/2013 10:13 AM, Alex wrote:
Isn't that where Kevin works too? Couldn't you just walk down the hall
and ask him? lol
:-) I'm trying to get more people involved in the project.
Speaking of which, I published the crash course on email /
On 12/19/2013 1:17 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
couldnt read that all ,but looks nice
Thanks.
spf. dkim, dmarc are not antispam mechs, however they may help sometimes
in some spam cases, so do not mix it up with antispam and confuse users
Good point. I'll add a caveat because mail
Am 19.12.2013 19:21, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 12/19/2013 1:17 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
couldnt read that all ,but looks nice
Thanks.
spf. dkim, dmarc are not antispam mechs, however they may help sometimes
in some spam cases, so do not mix it up with antispam and confuse users
Good
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2013-12-19 19:21:
On 12/19/2013 1:17 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
couldnt read that all ,but looks nice
Thanks.
spf. dkim, dmarc are not antispam mechs, however they may help
sometimes
in some spam cases, so do not mix it up with antispam and confuse
users
Good
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) - SPF is an anti-spam approach in
which
the Internet domain
...
Will clarify but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the description
on wikipedia from a year or so ago. This compendium has been
written over many years.
Am 19.12.2013 19:28, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) - SPF is an anti-spam approach in which
the Internet domain ...
Will clarify but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the description on
wikipedia from a year or so ago. This compendium has been written over
many
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2013-12-19 19:39:
not a big problem at all ,in your case, but some marketing people
promote spf/dkim/dmarc as some jedi wonder tool against spam, which
simply isnt true
so what is true ?
i really hate ignorants
On 12/19/2013 1:17 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
couldnt read that all ,but looks nice
spf. dkim, dmarc are not antispam mechs, however they may help sometimes
in some spam cases, so do not mix it up with antispam and confuse users
Am 19.12.2013 19:21, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Good point.
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) - SPF is an anti-spam approach in which
the Internet domain ...
Am 19.12.2013 19:28, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Will clarify but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the description on
wikipedia from a year or so ago. This compendium has been written over
many
On 12/19/2013 1:47 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
ok, so this is again one site that should be corrected... spf is NOT an
anti-spam tool - it is anti-forgery tool. Yes, much of spam is forged but
the info above is still wrong...
Kevin, please fix that info...
Definitely will mark it as
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2013-12-19 20:14:
On 12/19/2013 1:47 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
ok, so this is again one site that should be corrected... spf is NOT
an
anti-spam tool - it is anti-forgery tool. Yes, much of spam is forged
but
the info above is still wrong...
Kevin, please
Am 19.12.2013 19:49, schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) - SPF is an anti-spam approach in which
the Internet domain ...
Am 19.12.2013 19:28, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Will clarify but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the description on
wikipedia from a year or so
29 matches
Mail list logo
