How do I use SpamAssassin (along with any other necessary mail software)
to kill spam dead? I mean so that it doesn't even reach my mail spool
directory.
I've looked in FAQ after FAQ, site after site, book after book, and the
closest thing to an answer that I've found is the chapter in O'Reill
Eric Lemings wrote:
How do I use SpamAssassin (along with any other necessary mail software)
to kill spam dead? I mean so that it doesn't even reach my mail spool
directory.
I've looked in FAQ after FAQ, site after site, book after book, and the
closest thing to an answer that I've found i
From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eric Lemings wrote:
How do I use SpamAssassin (along with any other necessary mail software)
to kill spam dead? I mean so that it doesn't even reach my mail spool
directory.
I've looked in FAQ after FAQ, site after site, book after bo
At 18:12 29-05-2007, Eric Lemings wrote:
How do I use SpamAssassin (along with any other necessary mail
software) to kill spam dead? I mean so that it doesn't even reach
my mail spool directory.
I've looked in FAQ after FAQ, site after site, book after book, and
the closest thing to an ans
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:54 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How To Kill Spam Dead?
>
> At 18:12 29-05-2007, Eric Lemings wrote:
> >
> >How do I use SpamAssassin (al
> -Original Message-
> From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:39 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How To Kill Spam Dead?
>
> From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
&g
At 07:55 30-05-2007, Eric Lemings wrote:
Where exactly are these docs? All I see is a page full of links.
These links point to software which can be used with
SpamAssassin. If you follow the links, you should see a webpage to
download the software. That webpage may contain instructions on
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Eric Lemings wrote:
> I read through these Procmail docs and all I found was how to filter
> spam -- that is, it's still passed through the delivery process.
>
> For certain levels of spam (as scored by SpamAssassin), I don't even
> want to see it. I want Sendmail (via a mil
On Wed, 30 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
> Take a look at the spamassassin procmail ruleset at
> http://www.impsec/org/~jhardin/antispam/ for a starting point.
Bah. That URL should, of course, be:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 30 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
Take a look at the spamassassin procmail ruleset at
http://www.impsec/org/~jhardin/antispam/ for a starting point.
Bah. That URL should, of course, be:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/
Your req
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 30 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
Take a look at the spamassassin procmail ruleset at
http://www.impsec/org/~jhardin/antispam/ for a starting point.
Bah. That URL should, of course, be:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/
THAT said
guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
solution is TMDA
just my 2c worth
On 5/31/07, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the spamassassin procmail ruleset a
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
> solution is TMDA
I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
might be fine for personal email, but it's not very useful in a
business context. Too much end-user education r
Per Jessen wrote:
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
solution is TMDA
I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
might be fine for personal email, but it's not very useful in a
business context. Too much en
John Rudd wrote:
> Per Jessen wrote:
>> Dennis Kavadas wrote:
>>
>>> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
>>> solution is TMDA
>>
>> I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
>> might be fine for personal email, but it's not very useful
From: "Per Jessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
solution is TMDA
I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
might be fine for personal email, but it's not very useful in a
business c
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Per Jessen wrote:
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
solution is TMDA
I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
might be fine for personal email, but it's not very us
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Rudd wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
solution is TMDA
I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
might be fine for personal email,
On Thu, 31 May 2007, jdow wrote:
> this following link might be a barely scratching the surface "good
> start." Robert Alan Soloway has been arrested for a host of spam
> related offenses. Now, if they apply a gruesome enough punishment
> maybe others will become a little less likely to spam.
+1
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Wed, 30 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >
> >> Take a look at the spamassassin procmail ruleset at
> >> http://www.impsec/org/~jhardin/antispam/ for a starting point.
> >
most, if not all spam have spoofed addresses headers that do not resolve to
a valid account on any host, that said, how is it a problem ?
On 5/31/07, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
> Per Jessen wrote:
>> Dennis Kavadas wrote:
>>
>>> guys, even though we use SA for tag
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my door before
barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of you ?
On 6/1/07, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Per Jessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... th
why ?
On 5/31/07, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
> Dennis Kavadas wrote:
>
>> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
>> solution is TMDA
>
> I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
> might be fine for perso
why isn't it useful in a business context ?
there sender gets a challange once ! ...how is that a problem ?
On 5/31/07, Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
> solution is TMDA
I remember one of m
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
most, if not all spam have spoofed addresses headers that do not
resolve to a valid account on any host, that said, how is it a problem ?
Tell that to my Inbox that gets 40 or 50 bounces a day from clueless
admins who accept then bounce. I get info@, webmaster@, dns@ e
Dennis Kavadas schrieb:
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my door
before barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of you ?
think about it
if 1.000.000 People claim to be me , and you ask always me if i was it
how do you think i react
Matthias Hä
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
why ?
On 5/31/07, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
> Dennis Kavadas wrote:
>
>> guys, even though we use SA for tagging... the real short to long term
>> solution is TMDA
>
> I remember one of my friends saying just that - about 5 years ago. It
>
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my door
before barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of you ?
If you are a business or someone looking for help, you either have an
open door policy or you asked for someone to help you out.
A
Terrible analogy. How often do you get a million people all knocking on
your door at once?
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my door
before
barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of you ?
On 6/1/07, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED
If your assumption here were true, joe-job attacks would be practically
unheard-of. And for it to be a successful joe-job attack, the sending
account doesn't have to exist, only the sending mail domain has to exist.
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
most, if not all spam have spoofed addresses headers
From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my door
before barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of you ?
If you are a business or someone looking for help, you either have an open
door policy
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> most, if not all spam have spoofed addresses headers that do not
> resolve to a valid account on any host, that said, how is it a problem ?
Really? How are you so sure of this?
Read up on the term "joe job".
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
most, if not all spam have spoofed addresses headers that do not resolve
to a valid account on any host
Tell that to the thousands of our clients who have to deal with the
bouncebacks and other junk
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand
> think about it
>
> if 1.000.000 People claim to be me , and you ask always me if i was it
>
> how do you think i react
I did run into what I consider to be a responsible C/R system today-- this
is the NDR generated by my own mail server:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery
jdow wrote:
From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my
door before barging in, would you believe that was to much to ask of
you ?
If you are a business or someone looking for help, you either have an
op
i think we all need to read the TMDA FAQ ! :-)
On 6/1/07, Rick Macdougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jdow wrote:
> From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Dennis Kavadas wrote:
>>> if i had never meet you before and if i asked you to knock on my
>>> door before barging in, would you
On Thursday 31 May 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>On Thu, 31 May 2007, Rick Macdougall wrote:
>> jdow wrote:
>> > That level of rudeness does not set well with me. Call me a crotchety
>> > old bitch if you want. But I will continue to reject C/R, often with
>> > extreme prejudice, into the foreseeabl
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> jdow wrote:
> >
> > That level of rudeness does not set well with me. Call me a crotchety old
> > bitch if you want. But I will continue to reject C/R, often with
> > extreme prejudice, into the foreseeable future.
>
> Heh, I think I love you :)
+1
I've read it in the past. What part do you think changes the issues
being raised about challenge-response systems?
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
i think we all need to read the TMDA FAQ ! :-)
On 6/1/07, Rick Macdougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jdow wrote:
> From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL P
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> i think we all need to read the TMDA FAQ ! :-)
I have read the entire general section. None of it seems to address any
of the concerns about TMDA posted by me or anyone else on this list. The
only part that's even vaguely relevant to this discussion are sections
1.1 and 1.5.
Dennis Kavadas wrote:
> why isn't it useful in a business context ?
> there sender gets a challange once ! ...how is that a problem ?
>
Hi Dennis,
It's not a problem per se, just not very useful.
In a business context, in particular in a non-English speaking country,
the challenge will often ca
Matt Kettler writes:
> [lots of correct stuff]
> ...
> Anyone telling you spammers only or mostly use bogus return addresses
> either hasn't studied spam extensively or is deluding themselves.
Well, they *used* to use bogus addresses -- that was the case 2 or 3
years ago, before Sender Address Ve
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matt Kettler writes:
[lots of correct stuff]
...
Anyone telling you spammers only or mostly use bogus return addresses
either hasn't studied spam extensively or is deluding themselves.
Well, they *used* to use bogus addresses -- that was the case 2 or
-
From: "Dennis Kavadas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2007, June 02 04:01
Subject: Re: How To Kill Spam Dead?
read the TMDA FAQ !
On 6/2/07, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Justin Mason" <[E
44 matches
Mail list logo
