On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
> NOW you're getting somewhere. I saw that info on their site. The IP
> returned has the last octet set according to the tier. So maybe the
> issue here, which we should push into the SA developers hands is
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
NOW you're getting somewhere. I saw that info on their site. The IP
returned has the last octet set according to the tier. So maybe the issue
here, which we should push into the SA developers hands is that the
current Habeas rules only look for a binary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It is my understanding after reviewing the Habeas material that Habeas
has defined multiple "tiers" of "permission-based"
"bulk-email-advertising" so that "bulk-email-advertising" senders are
classified
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Save your bullets.
Habeas is history... it's been swallowed and the "new" mothership will be in
SA 3.3.0
Cryptic, but raising hopes. Could you please explain this remark?
- C
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> So, technically if I hire someone to kill you, I'm technically not
> guilty of murder since I didn't pull the trigger? Technically speaking.
Technically speaking, your analogy is bad, but I'll work with it.
I see no point in beating that analogy
On 08/12/2009 16:35, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Sadly, with such a diverse user base, I cannot use a single Bayes DB
> that would work well for all our users. My SMTP gateway (Mail Avenger)
> works best if mail is scanned for *all* recipients, and so it is not
> possible to use individual per-user B
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
Nonsense. I had to score this list -2000 just to keep it from
scoring so darn high that it was hitting the 'automatic'
rejection at the SMTP gate before any of my whitelists could
function.
Charles,
you would be better off properly whitelisting the SA mailing
forgive me for asking this in the middle of this thread yet in all
seriousness...
Q) what is the inverse of Spamassassin ?
i am quite certain that those in the know have spent a lot of time thinking
about HAM signatures.
maybe that isnt quite the right way to say the question...
so, what do yo
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
act is to allow the spammers to send out the "first" mail. Direct
e-mail mailers just setup fake company after fake company, so they can
repeatedly spam the "fi
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
act is to allow the spammers to send out the "first" mail. Direct e-mail
mailers just setup fake company after fake company, so they can
repeatedly spam the "first time" over and over
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Both would have to be done any time a new address was added to the mailing
list. And there would have to be some watchdog ensuring the MSP doesn't
relax the policy over time.
Uh-huh. For a -4 in my mail filte
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Both would have to be done any time a new address was added to the
mailing list. And there would have to be some watchdog ensuring the MSP
doesn't relax the policy over time.
Uh-huh. For a -4 in my mail filter? They oughta! :)
It's a great idea. The prob
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
. the default for a spam filter should not be to give
any weight to a white list unless the user modifies the config
themselves specifically. It can be seen to be suspicious and offering a
pecuniary advantage to those involved and using it.
13 matches
Mail list logo
