Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro :
> Hi
>
> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>
> Somebody noticed some problem?
>
>
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Rejaine Monteiro
wrote:
> Hi
>
> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>
> Somebody noticed some problem?
>
>
list.dsbl.org has been dead for about a year. You shouldn't be using
it. Please see
http://www.dsbl.org
spamhaus will disable access
Hi, thanks all for tips..
I wanted to say zen.spamhaus.org, only.
I don't use list.dsbl.org a long time ago.. (wrong copy/paste)
I'll see use limit thing..
Thanks ...
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Rejaine Monteiro
wrote:
Hi
The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops w
Is there an easy way to tell how many times I'm querying their servers
from Spamassassin? I doubt I'm any where near those numbers but it
would be nice to know.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Martin Hepworth wrote
Curtis LaMasters wrote:
Is there an easy way to tell how many times I'm querying their servers
from Spamassassin? I doubt I'm any where near those numbers but it
would be nice to know.
look for 'dnstop'.
run it for a while
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *| *SECN
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>
> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro :
> > Hi
> >
> > The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
> >
> > Somebody noticed some problem?
> >
> >
>
>
>
That is possible - $pamhaus a
On Tue, March 31, 2009 20:17, Rik wrote:
> It's known as $pamhaus... Those court cases and trips around the
> world don't come for free and I have very little respect for them.
#!/bin/sh
USE="-war" emerge bind
change resolv.conf to
nameserver 127.0.0.1
do you hate me ? :)))
--
http://loca
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:17, Rik wrote:
>
[drivel about Spamhaus snipped]
>
> Use the Barracuda list - it's pretty aggressive [...] USE:
> b.barracudacentral.org.
>
What rate of false positives does it get?
What is the basis of being listed?
Does it have sub-lists to cover different listin
On 31-Mar-2009, at 12:17, Rik wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro :
Hi
The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
Somebody noticed some problem?
That is possible - $pamhaus
2009/3/31 Rik :
>
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>>
>> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro :
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>> >
>> > Somebody noticed some problem?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Owww..
I'm out of discussion about spamhaus vs barracuda, because IMHO,
spamhaus do a great free service..
And here, my problem had nothing to do with spamhaus or volume
limitations, but just a internal problem in mailserver
*Michael Scheidell, thank you for dnstop tip.. (tis very cool)
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:max...@gmail.com]
Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
To: hlug090...@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
> Err no.
>
> spamhaus is great for low use. For high use they expect y
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:max...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
> To: hlug090...@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
> Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
>
>>
>
> When someone tells me 'their' list is much more aggressive than spamhaus,
> my first reaction is not: "Oh, coolie, more to block!" More like: "Another
> one of those overly aggressive blocklists that in its rampant 'Off with
> their heads' policy just renders itself pretty much useless." So, i
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:max...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
> To: hlug090...@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
> Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
>
> > When someone tells me 'their&#x
Mark wrote:
> I've been reading up a bit on Barracuda et al, like:
>
> http://www.email-ethics.com/2009/01/emailregorg-project.html
> http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-engineers-ever.html
> http://www.debian-administration.org/users/simonw/weblog/295
>
> And now I'm even more convinced
On 7-Apr-2009, at 13:30, Steve Bertrand wrote:
...apparently, not enough trouble:
Yep, they were found out via DNS. It is Their whois data that is
obfuscated
Domain Name:EMAILREG.ORG
Created On:12-Apr-2008 21:40:49 UTC
Last Updated On:02-Apr-2009 18:45:33 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Apr-2010 21
LuKreme wrote:
> How about the 3rd post that exposes barracuda as a money-grubbing
> racketeering operation?
> "Barracuda own and operate emailreg.org, although there is no mention
> of this on the emailreg.org site, and the whois data is obscured.
> Indeed the owners of emailreg.org have gone to a
On 7-Apr-2009, at 08:39, Rob McEwen wrote:
Mark wrote:
I've been reading up a bit on Barracuda et al, like:
http://www.email-ethics.com/2009/01/emailregorg-project.html
http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-engineers-ever.html
http://www.debian-administration.org/users/simonw/weblog/295
Search through the archives, there was a patch to add it to SA.
Luix
2007/6/1, Martin Jürgens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
I am running Debian Etch, Exim4 and Spamassassin 3.1.7.
Now I am trying to find out how to make Spamassassin use Spamhaus Zen.
I am stuck.
Could anyone please tell me what
Thanks, I will search for it.
Am Freitag, den 01.06.2007, 10:50 -0300 schrieb Luis Hernán Otegui:
> Or, if you could, upgrade to SA 3.2, which includes it.
>
>
> Luix
>
> 2007/6/1, Martin Jürgens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> > I am running Debian Etch, Exim4 and Spamassassin 3.1.7.
> >
> > No
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Search through the archives, there was a patch to add it to SA.
Also note, do NOT use Zen to evaluate headers or anything in the
body. Zen is ONLY for approving the server that contacted your
server. See the notes on the Spamhaus.org
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Search through the archives, there was a patch to add it to SA.
Also note, do NOT use Zen to evaluate headers or anything in the body.
Unless of course you need to. ;-)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustedRel
Jerry Durand wrote:
At 08:47 AM 6/1/2007, Ken A wrote:
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Search through the archives, there was a patch to add it to SA.
Also note, do NOT use Zen to evaluate headers or anything in the body.
Unless of course you need
At 08:47 AM 6/1/2007, Ken A wrote:
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Search through the archives, there was a patch to add it to SA.
Also note, do NOT use Zen to evaluate headers or anything in the body.
Unless of course you need to. ;-)
http://wiki.a
> Now, if you want to use SBL-XBL, that's fine (I do). "Normal" users on
> dynamic addresses don't show up on those lists.
I disagree. True for SBL, but not for XBL.
Consider that there are MANY situations where a small-to-large office
will all share an IP to the outside world. Maybe we are ta
On Jun 1, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Ken A wrote:
see http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/
Quote from that page:
"Do not use ZEN in filters that do any ‘deep parsing’ of Received
headers, or for other than checking IP addresses that hand off to
your mailservers."
On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Now, if you want to use SBL-XBL, that's fine (I do). "Normal"
users on
dynamic addresses don't show up on those lists.
I disagree. True for SBL, but not for XBL.
Consider that there are MANY situations where a small-to-large office
will all sh
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Ken A wrote:
see http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/
Quote from that page:
"Do not use ZEN in filters that do any ‘deep parsing’ of Received
headers, or for other than checking IP addresses that hand off to your
mailservers."
That's assuming you
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Richard Frovarp wrote:
That's assuming you aren't using it intelligently. SA checks all
received headers via Zen to see if they are in the SBL. PBL and XBL
are only checked against last external header, via Zen.
Ah, nobody mentioned that SA was only using a
Jerry,
I think I'm in totally agreement with you, except when you said:
>>"SBL-XBL is fine for that."
SBL is fine for checking all the headers... but, per my original
message, I think that, like PBL, XBL will trigger too many FPs
when checked against all IPs in the headers, not just the
sendi
At 12:05 PM 6/1/2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
Did you mean to say, "SBL is fine for that." ??
I was going by old info, my server's had a separate rule to use
SBL-XBL for years, but since SA now uses pieces of Zen, I killed that rule.
--
Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.c
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Richard Frovarp wrote:
That's assuming you aren't using it intelligently. SA checks all
received headers via Zen to see if they are in the SBL. PBL and XBL
are only checked against last external header, via Zen.
Ah, nobody mentioned that S
33 matches
Mail list logo
