On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 09:33 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On Wed, July 1, 2009 08:50, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > > I'm going to need to disable some of these lists as the MTA has already
> > > > blocked stuff on them Kind of pointless making repeat lookups for stuff
> > > > al
Kasper Sacharias Eenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:20 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:28 +0200, Kasper Sacharias Eenberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 05:32 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:13 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:20 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:28 +0200, Kasper Sacharias Eenberg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 05:32 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:13 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > > > On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...
> > > > On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But for the paranoid will changing 50_scores.cf from;
> > > > >
> > > > > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3
> > > > > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2
> > > > > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 0.0
> > On Wed, July 1, 2009 08:50, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > I'm going to need to disable some of these lists as the MTA has already
> > > blocked stuff on them Kind of pointless making repeat lookups for stuff
> > > already tested. Thanks for pointing that out Benny.
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 a
On Thu, July 2, 2009 06:32, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Will it result in a nuclear war?
yes, and burn down all googles servers aswell :)
--
xpoint
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:28 +0200, Kasper Sacharias Eenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 05:32 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:13 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > > On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But for the paranoid will changing
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 05:32 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:13 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > But for the paranoid will changing 50_scores.cf from;
> > >
> > > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3
> >
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:13 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > But for the paranoid will changing 50_scores.cf from;
> >
> > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3
> > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2
> > score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HT
On 1-Jul-2009, at 06:47, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
But for the paranoid will changing 50_scores.cf from;
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 0.001 0 0.353 #
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:21 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, July 1, 2009 19:04, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > You may want to fix that backscatter problem you have too :-)
>
> just stop sending cc to me, then its fixed
>
My apologies. I figured if I sent it twice you may *READ* it
p
On Wed, July 1, 2009 19:04, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> You may want to fix that backscatter problem you have too :-)
just stop sending cc to me, then its fixed
--
xpoint
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 18:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, July 1, 2009 08:50, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I'm going to need to disable some of these lists as the MTA has
already
> > blocked stuff on them Kind of pointless making repeat lookups for
stuff
> > already tested. Thanks
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 18:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, July 1, 2009 08:50, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I'm going to need to disable some of these lists as the MTA has already
> > blocked stuff on them Kind of pointless making repeat lookups for stuff
> > already tested. Thanks
On Wed, July 1, 2009 08:50, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> I'm going to need to disable some of these lists as the MTA has already
> blocked stuff on them Kind of pointless making repeat lookups for stuff
> already tested. Thanks for pointing that out Benny.
pleasde do your home work again !, w
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >> Jul 1 07:38:46 munged #14781: query: 1.2.3.4.dnsbl.sorbs.net IN A +
> >> Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
> >> So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their ser
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> Jul 1 07:38:46 munged #14781: query: 1.2.3.4.dnsbl.sorbs.net IN A +
>> Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
>> So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their servers
>> stop answering...
On 01.07.09 08:08, Charles Gregory wrote:
> ..
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Jul 1 07:38:46 munged #14781: query: 1.2.3.4.dnsbl.sorbs.net IN A +
Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their servers
stop answering...
...which leads back to my original question,
Will the dev
On 01.07.09 11:26, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> And there is the argument that anything other than the final IP can
> easily be forged or inserted into the headers rendering a great many
> costly DNS checks. Swings and roundabouts.
if a spammer forges Received: line so the checked ip is in blac
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:00 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:27 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >
> > > Note that rbl checks do not only control the IP you are receiving mail
> > > from,
> > > but also an IP others are receiving mail from. That means, rbl c
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:11 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > I'm guessing there is some way to modify the network checks to it
>> > does not use specific RBL's. I've not studied closely, but I think
>> > today I need to become acqua
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:11 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 08:58 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2009 8:50 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >> > Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
> >> >
> >> > So it seems that the demise of sorbs
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:27 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > Note that rbl checks do not only control the IP you are receiving mail from,
> > but also an IP others are receiving mail from. That means, rbl checks can
> > help you catch spam others are (unintentionally) forwarding to you
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 08:58 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 7/1/2009 8:50 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> > Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
>> >
>> > So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their
>> > servers stop answering...
>>
>>
>>
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:27 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> Note that rbl checks do not only control the IP you are receiving
>> mail from, but also an IP others are receiving mail from. That means,
>> rbl checks can help you catch spam others are (uninte
Am 2009-07-01 08:26:09, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
>
> On Wed, July 1, 2009 07:44, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > In particular
> > # Enable or disable network checks
> > skip_rbl_checks 0
> > 0 = off 1 = on
>
> wroung
>
> 0 = use rbl
> 1 = skib rbl test
Both are right...
because the n
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:27 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Note that rbl checks do not only control the IP you are receiving mail from,
> but also an IP others are receiving mail from. That means, rbl checks can
> help you catch spam others are (unintentionally) forwarding to you.
>
> I
> > On 30.06.09 07:06, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > > Are you saying that ZEN caught it after SA processed it? Why are
> > > you not using ZEN in SA or at the SMTP stage?
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:10:36 +0200
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > She apparently does not have control over 69.43.
> > Am 2009-06-30 14:08:33, schrieb John Hardin:
> > > If zen worked to catch the message in procmail, how does it not work on
> > > your MTA? Or did we misinterpret your original post?
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 01:15 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > In Debian, the network related scans are acti
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 08:58 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 7/1/2009 8:50 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
> >
> > So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their servers
> > stop answering...
>
>
> See "Update: 25th June 2009 "
>
> http:
On 7/1/2009 8:50 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net
So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their servers
stop answering...
See "Update: 25th June 2009 "
http://www.au.sorbs.net/
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 08:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, July 1, 2009 07:44, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > In particular
> > # Enable or disable network checks
> > skip_rbl_checks 0
> > 0 = off 1 = on
>
> wroung
>
> 0 = use rbl
> 1 = skib rbl test
>
Indeed I was "WROUNG";
On Wed, July 1, 2009 07:44, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> In particular
> # Enable or disable network checks
> skip_rbl_checks 0
> 0 = off 1 = on
wroung
0 = use rbl
1 = skib rbl test
--
xpoint
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 01:15 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-06-30 14:08:33, schrieb John Hardin:
> > If zen worked to catch the message in procmail, how does it not work on
> > your MTA? Or did we misinterpret your original post?
>
> In Debian, the network related scans are activated an
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:15:56 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-06-30 14:08:33, schrieb John Hardin:
> > If zen worked to catch the message in procmail, how does it not
> > work on your MTA? Or did we misinterpret your original post?
>
> In Debian, the network related scans are activated and
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2009-06-30 14:08:33, schrieb John Hardin:
If zen worked to catch the message in procmail, how does it not work on
your MTA? Or did we misinterpret your original post?
In Debian, the network related scans are activated and I do not know,
why ZE
Am 2009-06-30 14:08:33, schrieb John Hardin:
> If zen worked to catch the message in procmail, how does it not work on
> your MTA? Or did we misinterpret your original post?
In Debian, the network related scans are activated and I do not know,
why ZEN is never executed. If you know more abo
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2009-06-30 07:06:37, schrieb rich...@buzzhost.co.uk:
Are you saying that ZEN caught it after SA processed it? Why are you
not using ZEN in SA or at the SMTP stage?
Because it does not work...
My Mailserver does tonns (the syslog of my DNS server
Am 2009-06-30 07:06:37, schrieb rich...@buzzhost.co.uk:
> Are you saying that ZEN caught it after SA processed it? Why are you
> not
> using ZEN in SA or at the SMTP stage?
Because it does not work...
My Mailserver does tonns (the syslog of my DNS server is full of it) of
DNS checks but ZEN does
Am 2009-06-30 04:33:57, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> what ip ?
[michelle.konz...@michelle1:~] host 224.118.146.174.zen.spamhaus.org
224.118.146.174.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.11
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:10:36 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 30.06.09 07:06, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Are you saying that ZEN caught it after SA processed it? Why are
> > you not using ZEN in SA or at the SMTP stage?
>
> She apparently does not have control over 69.43.203.202,
> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 00:46 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > For some seconds I have goten this spam, which has passed my spmassassin
> > but was hit by a seperated ZEN rule in procmail:
> >
> >
> > Return-Path: soria.h.steven...@gmail.com
> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 00:46 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> For some seconds I have goten this spam, which has passed my spmassassin
> but was hit by a seperated ZEN rule in procmail:
>
>
> Return-Path: soria.h.steven...@gmail.com
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on
>
On Tue, June 30, 2009 00:46, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> For some seconds I have goten this spam, which has passed my spmassassin
> but was hit by a seperated ZEN rule in procmail:
what ip ?
imho ipv6 is still not stable in any sa versions, and this might be your problem
--
xpoint
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:46:00 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> For some seconds I have goten this spam, which has passed my
> spmassassin but was hit by a seperated ZEN rule in procmail:
please use a pastebin when pasting things like email headers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastebin
http://pa
For some seconds I have goten this spam, which has passed my spmassassin
but was hit by a seperated ZEN rule in procmail:
Return-Path: soria.h.steven...@gmail.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on
samba3.private.tamay-dogan.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, s
46 matches
Mail list logo
