On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, David Cary Hart wrote:
> If someone can figure out the mechanics, I have a volunteer
> (working on her MBA) who is great at crafting policy. I also have
> the mirrors and structure. I am willing to add the zone. My first
> listing would be Gandi.
I have beta versions of this
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Horne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:06 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Registrar RBL: nomination and scoring
>
>
> Homelinux.org is owned by dyndns.org, and the company g
From: "Bill Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 06:26:18PM -0700, jdow wrote:
I wonder what the reputation of homelinux.org is these days.
(I just posted a couple "rules" to the FC mailing list about them.
A spam was relayed through them to the list followed by two shills
who c
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 06:26:18PM -0700, jdow wrote:
>
> I wonder what the reputation of homelinux.org is these days.
> (I just posted a couple "rules" to the FC mailing list about them.
> A spam was relayed through them to the list followed by two shills
> who copied the entire message and comp
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:41 AM, John D. Hardin wrote:
There still remains the question about what **exactly** should the
numerator and the denominator be when calculating that percentage?
Any ideas yet?
Not from me.
I don't know either. I base the gen
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> I like the idea of an RBL gives ratings instead of binary values.
> That's why I thought of it being a "confidence percentage" instead
> of just a "yes, we have them listed in the zone". How to build
> that confidence rating is another matter entirely.
T
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, August 13, 2006 02:11, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
>
> 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> based on the returned IP look? Can/does S
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:41 AM, John D. Hardin wrote:
There still remains the question about what **exactly** should the
numerator and the denominator be when calculating that percentage?
Any ideas yet?
Not from me.
I don't know either. I base the general idea on the IronPort "Sender
Base
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, David Cary Hart wrote:
> I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, this could be a very
> powerful economic boycott which is why I thought about it. I am
> only pointing our the administrative difficulties.
>
> How would you suggest the query mechanism works? I Most whois
>
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
>
> Registrars' Terms of Service should be publicly available for
> review; standards for ToS treatment of spammer behavior should be
> fairly easy to develop and apply.
>
> Registrars' responsiveness to compla
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, David Cary Hart wrote:
> > > b) have an RBL which returns different values for different
> > > confidence levels.
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> > based on the returned IP look?
>
> I actually considered doing this. However:
>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:11:34 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > If someone does make a Registrar RBL and a Name Server RBL (both
> > of which are good ideas), _PLEASE_ do something like this:
> >
> > a) have two lists for each R
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sun, August 13, 2006 02:11, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> > based on the returned IP look? Can/does SA cache the returned IP and
> > test
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
> >I'm not sure zone transfers will be feasible, since the registrar
> >determination will be made dynamically.
>
> I think, to prevent processing overloads, you might want to cache
> results at least for a period of minutes and not recalculate
> results for
On Sun, August 13, 2006 02:11, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
>
> 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> based on the returned IP look? Can/does SA cache the returned IP and
> test it in multiple rules without making multiple DNS queries
>I'm not sure zone transfers will be feasible, since the registrar
>determination will be made dynamically.
I think, to prevent processing overloads, you might want to cache results at
least for a period of minutes and not recalculate results for every thing
query. I'm sure this isn't something th
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:11 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >
> >> b) have an RBL which returns different values for different
> >> confidence levels.
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> > based on the returned IP look? Can
On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:11 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
b) have an RBL which returns different values for different
confidence levels. Something like a percentage of known spammers
are on that specific provider. So, if a registrar is 60% spammers
and 40% bystanders, it will return "60"... and I
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> If someone does make a Registrar RBL and a Name Server RBL (both
> of which are good ideas), _PLEASE_ do something like this:
>
> a) have two lists for each RBL, one which has the above "kill the
> bystanders" point of view, and one which is much more conse
19 matches
Mail list logo
