On 06/03/2018 14:18, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote:
>
>> That's great. It means you know what you are doing when you change the
>> default threshold to less than 5.0. In that case you need to change a lot
>> of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and
On 06/03/2018 04:42, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
> I would argue that the current scores work very well for default installs.
My experience shows otherwise
>> That would be acceptable :)
>
> I disagree. Knee-jerk changes to rule scores based on a single report that
> contradicts what others are seei
On 04/03/2018 22:46, David Jones wrote:
>> Some us have very fine tuned SA's, and use less than 5.0 which was
>> acceptable 10 years ago, but not in recent times, so a few .1's can mean
>> user gets spam, V user doesnt get spam - I know what I prefer.
>
> That's great. It means you know what y
On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote:
That's great. It means you know what you are doing when you change the
default threshold to less than 5.0. In that case you need to change a
lot of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and the KAM.cf
rules probably score way too high for you a
On 3 Mar 2018, at 3:54, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84 l
On 03/03/2018 06:26 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote:
On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
> -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS
On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
> -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
> [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
> -0.1
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF
ferent rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either
> ridiculous, or outright suspect:
>
> -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
> [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
> -0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems
On 2 Mar 2018, at 0:48, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
But why does SA have to expose a rule for each and every code IADB
provides?
So that users can implement their own policies if desired? So that
different rules can have a more granular effect on the inbound email
flow, without this being a simpl
On 03/02/2018 02:54 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry
for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for
the IADB whitelist still
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect
On 01/03/18 19:04, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect
On 1 Mar 2018, at 10:29, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
(Disclaimer, I have inner visibility
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
>> I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
>> persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
>> whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or ou
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
On 26 Dec 2017, at 15:04 (-0500), Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind
words!
I'm glad you didn't find anything glaringly incorrect or derogatory
about my external-view explanation. And of course I stand by every kind
word.
[...]
How
>
> My sense is that ESPs engage ISIPP thinking they are getting an advocate and
> ambassador to mailbox providers when in fact they get a teacher/evangelist
> for sender best practices.
ITYM 'schooled in best practices. ;-) ;-)
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
CEO/President,
SuretyMail
On 26 Dec 2017, at 9:46 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
So you will excuse me if I take any whitelist which helps marketing
emailing lists "improve deliverability" with a very big dollop of
salt.
Of course. I don't give significant ham weight to any of the default
IADB rules other than RCVD_
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"),
where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact via that email
address before receiving any content, in order to avoid unwanted third-party
>
> What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"),
> where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact
> via that email address before receiving any content, in order to avoid
> unwanted third-party subscriptions?
Confirmed opt-in, whi
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Where we say "opt-in" we mean exactly that - single opt-in; if someone
didn't ask for the email not only would we call that "opt-out", but we
would not certify that sender's email.
What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "
>
> 'magically' re-subscribe after a while, or simply get around rules by
> creating a new list and re-subscribing everybody who unsubscribed.
Just so you know, that behavior is specifically made illegal by CAN-SPAM. And
Sebastian, I see that you are in the UK, which already has tighter law
Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind words!
For those of you who don't know us, or me, I came out of MAPS; I was in-house
counsel for MAPS during the first rash of lawsuits against MAPS brought by
spammers. To say that I am rabidly anti-spam would be an understateme
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49:
have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your
permission?
On 26.12.17 19:01, Benny Pedersen wrote:
hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam
you did not narrow your sentence on apache mailing lists, perhaps you
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49:
have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your
permission?
hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam
RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05:
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
On 26.12.17 18:21, Benny Pedersen wrote:
stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails
have
RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05:
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails
Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a stri
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a strict DMARC policy is
inherently risky because you are losing the redundancy of an a
On 25/12/17 23:57, Bill Cole wrote:
On 25 Dec 2017, at 3:28 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Also, any idea why are there 6 different rules associated with this
particular whitelist?
IADB has many independent return codes that each have distinct meaning.
See
http://www.isipp.com/email-accred
On 25 Dec 2017, at 3:28 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Also, any idea why are there 6 different rules associated with this
particular whitelist?
IADB has many independent return codes that each have distinct meaning.
See
http://www.isipp.com/email-accreditation/about-the-codes/list-of-codes
On 25/12/17 10:45, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.12.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Sebastian Arcus:
On 23/12/17 10:01, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider
for inclusion.
Thank you. If enough people receive spam sanctioned by a particular
whiteli
I certainly look at all fns and fps and make changes to try and fix things in
the overall ecosystem.
If you have evidence of such problems, throw it in pastebin.
Beyond that I don't usually focus on one rule and you can always override
scores / disable rules in your own cf file.
I don't reme
On 23/12/17 10:01, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider for
inclusion.
Thank you. If enough people receive spam sanctioned by a particular
whitelist, will the minus scores associated with their rule(s) be
reduced over time? Also, any idea
The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider for
inclusion.
Regards,
KAM
On December 23, 2017 3:03:26 AM EST, Sebastian Arcus
wrote:
>What is the process of including whitelists in SA default configs? It
>is
>not the first time I see pretty obvious mailing list spam whi
What is the process of including whitelists in SA default configs? It is
not the first time I see pretty obvious mailing list spam which has
quite high minus scores from 2-3 whitelists included in SA:
-1.5 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
41 matches
Mail list logo