On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it hits about 9% of my
spam, with zero false-positives.
You will get false
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it hits about 9% of my
spam, with zero false-positives.
On 13.07.09
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it
RW wrote:
I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
untrusted headers.
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user,
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:38 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 22:43, RWrwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
untrusted headers.
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:38 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 13.07.09 16:26, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Do the RFC's state that they need to?
yes, RFC4954 in section 7 does
Where - I don't see it say it needs
I agree so strongly about not checking against all IPs in the header
that I'll probably turn down business from large anti-spam vendors who
cannot guarantee in writing that ivmSIP and ivmSIP/24 will ONLY be
checked against the actual sending IP. If this means I lose 4-5 figures
in annual revenue
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:21:36 +0100
Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
I do a very similar thing and see very similar results to yours.
I use zen.spamhaus to block at the smtp level and then run all
headers through sbl-xbl for a further few points. As already
mentioned elsewhere in this
I think it might be worth having 2 XBL tests, a high scoring test on
last-external and a lower-scoring test that goes back through the
untrusted headers.
I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP
addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added
12 matches
Mail list logo
