2014-07-29 13:18 GMT-03:00 Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu:
disabling html postings with big signature could be a start?
On 29.07.14 15:57, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
How does disabling html helps me?
It won't make people angry... HTML does not bbelong to mailing lists.
... afaik you have
Hi.
How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com?
M. Rodrigo Monteiro
fale...@rodrigomonteiro.net http://twitter.com/MarcioRodrigoM/
http://www.facebook.com/mrodrigom/
http://br.linkedin.com/pub/m%C3%A1rcio-rodrigo-de-oliveira-monteiro/28/491/3b8
On 07/29/2014 05:15 PM, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
Hi.
How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com?
how can we bypass you incredibly pointless footers?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_URIDNSBL.txt
USER SETTINGS
On 29. jul. 2014 17.16.24 M. Rodrigo Monteiro
fale...@rodrigomonteiro.net wrote:
How can I bypass this check only for my domain, say mydomain.com?
disabling html postings with big signature could be a start?
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
2014-07-29 13:18 GMT-03:00 Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu:
disabling html postings with big signature could be a start?
How does disabling html helps me?
If you do have the answer for what I've asked, then it's fine to respond my
question, like Axb did.
If not, please don't bother to answer.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:47:57AM +0300, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
So, why is it triggering URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_DBL_SPAM etc now, but
not when I received the original spam?
Or was the database updated with those
URLs after I received that particular spam?
i
It is quite likely
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Igor Chudov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:47:57AM +0300, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
So, why is it triggering URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_DBL_SPAM etc now, but
not when I received the original spam?
Or was the database updated with those
URLs after I received that particular
The difference is that it tripped BAYES50, RAZOR2_CHECK, URIBL_BLACK
and URIBL_DBL_SPAM.
I re-ran spamassassin a few times, and it does successfully flag this
as spam.
So, why is it triggering URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_DBL_SPAM etc now, but
not when I received the original spam?
Are those rules unreliable
So, why is it triggering URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_DBL_SPAM etc now, but
not when I received the original spam?
Or was the database updated with those
URLs after I received that particular spam?
i
It is quite likely that it was not in the database when you received it, but
was added
This just becomes increasingly important when management drops an
email in the Put Spam Here folder for training that clearly isn't
spam, but something they've subscribed to, like a newsletter. For the
email that even I question sometimes, I'd like to be able to give them
a definitive answer
This just becomes increasingly important when management drops an
email in the Put Spam Here folder for training that clearly isn't
spam, but something they've subscribed to, like a newsletter. For the
email that even I question sometimes, I'd like to be able to give them
a definitive
Alex wrote:
(how can a mail
server be whitelisted while the message body contains a blacklisted
URL?)
Pretty trivially; if spam with a blacklisted URI is forwarded from an
account handled by a trusted server, the final recipient will see both a
whitelisted/trusted relay and a blacklisted
.
Another simple example is mail from Google, such as their Google
Alert, which sends back links in an email every day based on your
query.
I was more looking for cases where that shouldn't be happening, and
one or the other (JMF_W or URIBL_BLACK) were incorrect. It seemed like
a good way to find
Alex wrote:
for both JMF_W
(HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message.
I'm not involved in the management of either of these, but I have some
analysis which I think is accurate:
(1) Marc Perkel's domain whitelist is auto-generated. This has many
advantages... but one disadvantage
Hi,
for both JMF_W
(HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message.
I'm not involved in the management of either of these, but I have some
analysis which I think is accurate:
Rob, thanks, I think you've hit the nail on the head on all counts.
That's what the spam race is all about
On 11/10/2009 10:59 PM, Alex wrote:
This just becomes increasingly important when management drops an
email in the Put Spam Here folder for training that clearly isn't
spam, but something they've subscribed to, like a newsletter. For the
email that even I question sometimes, I'd like to be able
they should be delisted, if not
blacklisted.
I guess that also holds true for URIBL_BLACK? If the URL is
blacklisted, then ideally the user shouldn't see the unsubscribe link.
Does topica.com ever send any legitimate mail? I see nothing but spam
coming from there. I see many similar providers
Hi all,
I wrote a procmail script, and a few corresponding shell scripts to
put together a list of emails that were marked for both JMF_W
(HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message. While not
necessarily the complete conflict you might think (how can a mail
server be whitelisted while
MySQL Student wrote:
Over the past few days I have been investigating more closely email
that wasn't tagged that I thought should have been, and
vice-versa, using various factors, such as URIBL_BLACK and JMF_W.
Very interesting.
Here's a quick testing script (ymmv on log file syntax
Hi,
Over the past few days I have been investigating more closely email
that wasn't tagged that I thought should have been, and vice-versa,
using various factors, such as URIBL_BLACK and JMF_W. I'm very
surprised that obvious hosts are on the URIBL_BLACK list, like
receiveeweek.com.
Even more
Hi,
I have been going through about 15MB of email generated from a
procmail recipe searching for RCVD_IN_JMF_W, and you would not believe
how many also match URIBL_BLACK or URIBL_GREY. Call me naive, but are
there really that many providers that are unaware their clients are
sending spam? (okay
wolfgang a écrit :
My message below was rejected as spam:
users@spamassassin.apache.org:
140.211.11.136_failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_552_spam_score_(15.9)_exceeded_threshold/
So, I resend it with the queried domain name obfuscated.
Let me quote Alex's reply on the
: URIBL_BLACK not working?
Date: Sunday, 24. May 2009
From: wolfgang mewo...@gmx.net
To: uribl-disc...@lists.maddoc.net
I have just noticed that URIBL_BLACK lookups have apparently stopped
working lately on my home computer (dial-up IP, currently 91.5.253.15).
Other SpamAssassin URIBL* rules are working
Claudia Burman wrote:
...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ?
Another message from the same domain doesn't hit the rule
uribl.com checks embedded URIs in the message, not the from domain. The
content of the two messages was obviously different. One contained a
listed URI, the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at x.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5
tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,
URIBL_BLACK=3]
X-Spam-Score: 6.469
X-Spam-Level
PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at x.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5 tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55, URIBL_BLACK=3]
X-Spam-Score: 6.469
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Flag
]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at x.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5 tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55, URIBL_BLACK=3]
X
-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5
tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,
URIBL_BLACK=3]
X-Spam-Score: 6.469
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Where's a URI in that?
Look in the message body for URIs and/or domain names and check
On 10/11/2008 12:43 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:15:00AM +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
74.714 78.1593 1.11300.986 0.780.00 URIBL_BLACK
Would you pls post those FP URIs so ppl can judge what your rating is
based upon.
(imperfect) command posted for my
On 10/13/2008 11:27 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2008, 11:29:33 PM, Yet Ninja wrote:
Something tells me your stats are either obsolete, biased, borked or
your ham corpus would be quite a few other ppl's mainsleaze spam corpus.
Imo, that 1.1% FP rating seems to have little
0.00 (all messages as %)
74.714 78.1593 1.11300.986 0.780.00 URIBL_BLACK
a 1.1% FP rate is very bad IMO. SURBL is 0.1%, for comparison.
Would you pls post those FP URIs so ppl can judge what your rating is
based upon.
On Friday, October 10, 2008, 11:29:33 PM, Yet Ninja wrote:
Something tells me your stats are either obsolete, biased, borked or
your ham corpus would be quite a few other ppl's mainsleaze spam corpus.
Imo, that 1.1% FP rating seems to have little value in a global context.
thx for the
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Huh, why not simply:
score URIBL_BLACK 6
Inside your local.cf? This is wasting CPU... ?
olso works, but when sa-rules change the score you did not notice the change
You can always do a relative score adjust.. SA supports that you know:
score URIBL_BLACK (1.5
Of the fair amount of false negatives that get through, more than 90% of
them appear to hit on URIBL_BLACK. I have incrementally increased it
recently to a score of 5.0 (I hit on 6.0). The stuff that's still getting
through seems to be hitting on only URIBL_BLACK.
I am very tempted
1.11300.986 0.780.00 URIBL_BLACK
a 1.1% FP rate is very bad IMO. SURBL is 0.1%, for comparison.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:55:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of the fair amount of false negatives that get through, more than 90% of
them appear to hit on URIBL_BLACK. I have
this.
meta URIBL_BLACK_ADJ (URIBL_BLACK)
describe URIBL_BLACK_ADJ Meta: i trust uribl more :)
score URIBL_BLACK_ADJ 1.5
that way you still benefit from score adjust on sa-rules
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Hi!
I am very tempted to bump the score of it to 6.0 or higher, as it would
drastically reduce spam, but I'd like to get any false positive feedback
on doing that first. I haven't seen any so far, but I figure others must
be doing this.
meta URIBL_BLACK_ADJ (URIBL_BLACK)
describe
On Sat, October 11, 2008 00:11, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
meta URIBL_BLACK_ADJ (URIBL_BLACK)
describe URIBL_BLACK_ADJ Meta: i trust uribl more :)
score URIBL_BLACK_ADJ 1.5
that way you still benefit from score adjust on sa-rules
read last line here one more time
Huh, why not simply:
score
Hi!
describe URIBL_BLACK_ADJ Meta: i trust uribl more :)
score URIBL_BLACK_ADJ 1.5
that way you still benefit from score adjust on sa-rules
Huh, why not simply:
score URIBL_BLACK 6
Inside your local.cf? This is wasting CPU... ?
olso works, but when sa-rules change the score you did
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:01:48AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
meta URIBL_BLACK_ADJ (URIBL_BLACK)
describe URIBL_BLACK_ADJ Meta: i trust uribl more :)
score URIBL_BLACK_ADJ 1.5
that way you still benefit from score adjust on sa-rules
The right way to do this is:
score URIBL_BLACK (1.5
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:15:00AM +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
74.714 78.1593 1.11300.986 0.780.00 URIBL_BLACK
Would you pls post those FP URIs so ppl can judge what your rating is
based upon.
(imperfect) command posted for my future reference ...
$ grep URIBL_BLACK ham
On Sat, October 11, 2008 00:32, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
score URIBL_BLACK (1.5)
you don't need another rule, you just want to add a value to the score.
both ways do the same ?
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of the fair amount of false negatives that get through, more than 90% of
them appear to hit on URIBL_BLACK. I have incrementally increased it
recently to a score of 5.0 (I hit on 6.0). The stuff that's still
getting through seems to be hitting on only URIBL_BLACK
Jo Rhett wrote:
Note: yes, uribl has their own mailing list. That server has been down
for quite some time, so I gave up and posted it here in case someone is
dual listed and can fix it.
There's no URL in this message. What is it mis-matching against?
This has been answered, but, if
On Jun 30, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:07:04PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
There's no URL in this message. What is it mis-matching against?
When in doubt, run through spamassassin -D:
[9710] dbg: uridnsbl: domains to query: sync.pl svcolo.com
Thanks for
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SA doesn't just look for full URLs, it looks for things that could
be
hostnames ala copy www.example.com into your browser.
This is fairly nonfunctional. I've been chasing around all sorts of
FPs that seem to hit pretty much every message that
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to completely disable this over-opportunistic behavior. 90%
of my e-mails have either system output, or are concerning code
segments or router interfaces, etc, etc. I need these mails to get
through.
At the very least, common collisions like
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:05:17PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
I need to completely disable this over-opportunistic behavior. 90%
of my e-mails have either system output, or are concerning code
segments or router interfaces, etc, etc. I need these mails to get
through.
At the very least,
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
If these are from known good sources, just whitelist them (or skip SA
altogether). Otherwise, if the names are specific, you could always
use uridnsbl_skip_domain to bypass URIDNSBL checks on the parsed
domains.
Both of these assume I know
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:28:27PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Both of these assume I know every person who needs to e-mail me, and
everything they will send me. Theo, you're active in enough open
source projects to know better.
Well, you just said you were receiving a large amount of system
Quoting SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 12:07 30-06-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Note: yes, uribl has their own mailing list. That server has been
down for quite some time, so I gave up and posted it here in case
someone is dual listed and can fix it.
There's no URL in this message. What is it
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 at 05:58 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Quoting SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 12:07 30-06-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Note: yes, uribl has their own mailing list. That server has been
down for quite some time, so I gave up and posted it here in case
someone is dual listed
Hi Jeff,
At 03:58 01-07-2007, Jeff Chan wrote:
http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=sync.pl
I missed that one. :-) It's not listed though.
Regards,
-sm
Quoting SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Jeff,
At 03:58 01-07-2007, Jeff Chan wrote:
http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=sync.pl
I missed that one. :-) It's not listed though.
It was listed when I wrote.
Jeff C.
-Score: 5.00 (*) [Tag at 3.50] URIBL_BLACK,SPF(none,0)
X-Canitpro-Stream: support (inherits from default)
X-Canit-Stats-Id: 117735 - 63721d93a4a2
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 64.13.135.12
Something change with the ntp server?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cron Daemon)
Date
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:07:04PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
There's no URL in this message. What is it mis-matching against?
When in doubt, run through spamassassin -D:
[9710] dbg: uridnsbl: domains to query: sync.pl svcolo.com
SA doesn't just look for full URLs, it looks for things that could
At 12:07 30-06-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Note: yes, uribl has their own mailing list. That server has been
down for quite some time, so I gave up and posted it here in case
someone is dual listed and can fix it.
There's no URL in this message. What is it mis-matching against?
There was a URL in
jdow wrote:
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's look at their IPs they are hosting their domain from:
$ host uhmcargo*MUNGED*.com
snip
Fascinating - even the whois registration seems to have MPD, er Multiple
Personality Disorder. This is what I got in part:
===8---
Registrant:
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
On a side note, to anyone watching this seemingly incredible long discusion about one FP:
This is typically what URIBL member do. We take every FP and delist request seriously. We do deep research on each one. Much deeper then anything you have
RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK|On a side note, to anyone watching this
seemingly incredible
long discusion about one FP:
|This is typically what URIBL member do. We take every FP and delist request
seriously. We do deep
research on |each one. Much deeper then anything you have seen here
that URIBL_BLACK isn't useful, or that you
| guys aren't doing a good job. However, this is good evidence
| you guys are doing great, but you do still have some areas
| that could use improvement.
|
|
| thanks, i think. ;)
|
| our fp ratio for ham has always been hanging at that level. i think
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 May 2006 22:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
I probably get a FP about once a week as somebody will opt in
a mailing list and a listed URL
| But.
|
| There are some spammers who run subscribe to mailing lists.
|
| I got spam at home the other day from ediets.co.uk, for example.
|
| I call this stuff subscription spam and would block most of it anyway.
|
| Cheers,
|
| Phil
Easier said than done when you have a paying
wrote:
| But.
|
| There are some spammers who run subscribe to mailing lists.
|
| I got spam at home the other day from ediets.co.uk, for example.
|
| I call this stuff subscription spam and would block most of it anyway.
|
| Cheers,
|
| Phil
Easier said than done when you have a
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
| But.
|
| There are some spammers who run subscribe to mailing lists.
|
| I got spam at home the other day from ediets.co.uk, for example.
|
| I call this stuff subscription spam and would block most
of it anyway.
|
| Cheers
|
| Easier said than done when you have a paying customer who wants this
specific mailing.
|
| Have you tried lowering the score of the spamassassin rules that are
| getting hit?
|
| Jay
I'll look at a couple of the examples and see what else is firing. I may have
to tune URI_BLACK
down a
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:44
To: Jay Lee
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
|
| Easier said than done when you have a paying customer who
wants this specific mailing
to tune URI_BLACK
down a tad. I'll let you know.
For reference, here's my running config:
urirhssub URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com.A 2
bodyURIBL_BLACK eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLACK')
describeURIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
tflags
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
I've scored GREY at 0.1 as an informational rule. It's S/O is
so poor it is more
qualified to be a nonspam rule. ( 0.354 in the nightly
mass-check Theo posted)
Thats actually perfect. Exactly what it was designed to be :)
Had it been
URIBL_BLACK?
I personally have this problem too. The more severe issue is that once in a rare
while some of the stuff that cross-hits URIBL_BLACK is actually business mail
from a distributor who's referencing pdf's of sales flyers that are hosted on
grey server.
Removing the duplicates, I've
Chris Santerre wrote:
Are you referring to 's customers, or anyone who's using
URIBL_BLACK?
Just his customer. :)
I'm not that crazy!
Are you sure? :)
Oh, wait.. I forgot.. the first rule of the crazy sysadmins club is...
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:32 PM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris Santerre wrote
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris Santerre wrote
: uhmcargo_MUNGED.net]
* 3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
* [URIs: uhmcargo_MUNGED.net]
* 3.4 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: uhmcargo_MUNGED.net]
I had to _MUNGED the domain because the mailing hit 13.5 and bounced
Title: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
RE: My only problem
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:12
To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACKHere's one that just got
captured
Chris and Dallas,
Thank you for pointing this out. I will convey this back to the customer.
- Original Message -
From: Dallas L. Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACKHere's one
: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
| Chris Santerre wrote:
|
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:12 PM
| To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
| Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
| Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:42
To: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris and Dallas,
Thank you for pointing this out. I will convey this back to
the customer.
- Original
resend again because SA is bouncing them..
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:51
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: ''; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris Santerre wrote
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 17:37 wrote:
Easier said than done when you have a paying customer who wants this
specific mailing.
He should just filter back those mails from the SPAM folder. You do send
all SPAM to him anyway, just marked, don't you? So he has it.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
resend again because SA is bouncing them..
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:51
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: ''; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 15:29
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
resend again because SA is bouncing them
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
http://www.joewein.net/fraud/fraud-job-2006-04.htm
i posted that, and reposted it due to list reject, about 30 min ago.
did it not come through?
It depends upon how you define came through...
Posted to the list - [OK]
Delivered from list to my server - [OK]
...
What are your thoughts guys? Lower the score for URI_BLACK and JP?
seriously? the domains is 3 days old and is unreachable, and uses
outfitter.net NS's which appear to have an identity crisis.
April 25th,
ns1.outfiter.net 206.173.156.105
ns2.outfiter.net 24.98.13.40
April
-Original Message-
From: List Mail User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 6:36 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
...
What are your thoughts guys
only has text/html MIME parts
* 1.1 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
* [URIs: uhmcargo_MUNGED.net]
* 3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
* [URIs: uhmcargo_MUNGED.net]
* 3.4 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL
blocklist
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
RE: My only
List Mail User wrote:
...
List Mail User wrote:
Huh? (Lookup strawman in a dictionary, please.)
That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it
looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you
presented, as best I can make sense of your
is prone to mistakes worth 6.008 points (default score
for OB in SA 3.1.0 + uribl.com's suggested 3.0 score for URIBL_BLACK).
Yes, given the fact that the mistakes seem to be very hard to make
and one presumes some actual checking on the complaints.
Sure I can customize.
But I'm creating
List Mail User wrote:
winterizewithscotts.com
Scott's lawncare registered user updates.
Matt,
winterizewithscotts.com looks like a case of affiliate spamming or
misuse of sweepstakes entries.
See:
http://forums.gottadeal.com/archive/index.php/t-14640.html
From: List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Mail User wrote:
winterizewithscotts.com
Scott's lawncare registered user updates.
Matt,
winterizewithscotts.com looks like a case of affiliate spamming or
misuse of sweepstakes entries.
See:
List Mail User wrote:
In each case, normal HTML gives a referrer page, so no affiliate
ID is needed.
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
(more extensive commentary directed
...
Matt,
In each case, normal HTML gives a referrer page, so no affiliate
ID is needed.
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cutpaste generates a
List Mail User wrote:
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cutpaste generates a referral all depends on your
browser and the setting used in some (e.g. Opera).
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Mail User wrote:
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cutpaste generates a referral all depends on your
browser and the setting
...
List Mail User wrote:
Paul.. None of those pages contain a link. The user would have to
copy-paste or hand-type the url. That would defeat any referrer mechanism.
Also, whether cutpaste generates a referral all depends on your
browser and the setting used in some (e.g. Opera).
List Mail User wrote:
Huh? (Lookup strawman in a dictionary, please.)
That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it
looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you
presented, as best I can make sense of your posts.
Or are you admitting that you made
...
List Mail User wrote:
Huh? (Lookup strawman in a dictionary, please.)
That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it
looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you
presented, as best I can make sense of your posts.
Or are you admitting that you
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
