On 6/29/2015 1:37 PM, jdow wrote:
Ted, there is one ISP who insisted on blocking all emails sent from my
system because the internal network is "odd". It's not
"localhost.localdomain" or whatever it was they were looking for. And it
appears on my email headers. They decided "wizardess.wiz" is a
Ted, there is one ISP who insisted on blocking all emails sent from my system
because the internal network is "odd". It's not "localhost.localdomain" or
whatever it was they were looking for. And it appears on my email headers. They
decided "wizardess.wiz" is an illegal domain so the email from
On 6/27/2015 4:02 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
Although what you describe is a "workaround", the key is to keep your
house in order so you don't get listed, especially if you have not
actually fixed up the problem,
Oh Noel, why are you giving me fish in a barrel to shoot?
OK, now that you put your
Although what you describe is a "workaround", the key is to keep your
house in order so you don't get listed, especially if you have not
actually fixed up the problem, DNBSBL's are just like local sys admins,
they get tired of adding in /32's after /32's for the same @$#holes,
thats when the /32
Am 26.06.2015 um 18:43 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh
Since you and Charles have obviously never done this before why do you
feel qualified to comment?
*lol*
Go ahead and not do this based on these logic castles you have built
that are not founded on any experience of realit
Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh
Since you and Charles have obviously never done this before why do you
feel qualified to comment?
Go ahead and not do this based on these logic castles you have built
that are not founded on any experience of reality. Your customers will
be suffering for a few days while yo
Am 23.06.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Charles Sprickman:
One thing to keep in mind is that you may need to rotate your spare IPs in now
and then. Others can correct me, but my understanding is that all the major
email providers are going to treat an IP that regularly sends email to them
very differ
all number of recipients have been getting bounce-unsubscribed a
>>> community mailing list that I administer. The most recent bounces say
>>> that this "blocked using Barracuda Reputation;
>>> http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/"; Visiting that page
>&
Am 23.06.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Jered Floyd:
The form does seem to have worked, and I'm not currently on the BRBL, although
this morning I got bounces from a Barracuda customer for a very benign message
with "rejected due to spam content," so who knows. I wish there was better
visibility into t
>> The form does seem to have worked, and I'm not currently on the BRBL,
>> although
>> this morning I got bounces from a Barracuda customer for a very benign
>> message
>> with "rejected due to spam content," so who knows. I wish there was better
>> visibility into the process.
>
> then it w
Am 23.06.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Jered Floyd:
The form does seem to have worked, and I'm not currently on the BRBL, although this
morning I got bounces from a Barracuda customer for a very benign message with
"rejected due to spam content," so who knows. I wish there was better
visibility int
gt; A small number of recipients have been getting bounce-unsubscribed a
>> community mailing list that I administer. The most recent bounces say
>> that this "blocked using Barracuda Reputation;
>> http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/"; Visiting that page
>
mail through spam filters
even if you are listed on the BRBL is to register your domain and IPs at
EmailReg.org." OK, sounds good, I can prove that my IP address is
allowed to send for my domains -- I thought that was what SPF and DKIM
are for (which are configured) but whatever.
However, I cl
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 22:55:41 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> the question is *how* is that de-listing managed and how do you
> manage "i will take care in the future" and if that's not true
> because de-listing is just a click how easy is it for spammers to not
> realy care
I delist anyone who asks
On Sun Jun 21 16:22:26 2015, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> I don't approve of Barracuda's behaviour. If they're blocking
> /24s because of some bad machines, you should not have to pay for
> delisting one IP. If they can prove that your specific IP was responsible
> for a spam run, then it's legit to cha
Am 21.06.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Jered Floyd:
There is a murky relationship between Barracuda and EmailReg. It's awfully suspicious
that signing up on whitelist X clears you from "unrelated" blacklist Y.
So, it may not be "paying to delist one IP" in framing, but in action it seems
to be pret
EmailReg.org operates a whitelist, so you pay to get listed there. The site
doesn't say much at all about what sort of verification or later delisting for
spam they might do.
However, they are promoted directly on the "Sorry, your email was blocked" page
for Barracuda Repu
g.
>
> You are splitting hairs. Essentially, you are paying for delisting.
/sigh
I'm not splitting hairs, you are redefining "delisting". Go read the
first sentence on emailreg.org and learn something about them.
-Jim P.
Am 21.06.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 16:26:54 -0400
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Dianne Skoll
you should not have to pay for delisting one IP.
and with BN you are NOT paying for a delisting.
You are splitting hairs. Essentially, you a
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 16:26:54 -0400
Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Dianne Skoll
> > you should not have to pay for delisting one IP.
> and with BN you are NOT paying for a delisting.
You are splitting hairs. Essentially, you are paying for delisting.
We run our own set
Am 21.06.2015 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:23:58 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
spammers don't invest money, never
Of course not. They pay using a stolen credit card.
I don't approve of Barracuda's behaviour. If they're blocking
/24s because of some bad machines, yo
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> you should not have to pay for delisting one IP.
and with BN you are NOT paying for a delisting.You are paying for
the upfront ID validation and verification process that goes into
fast-tracking your email flow. If you don't want that f
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:23:58 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> spammers don't invest money, never
Of course not. They pay using a stolen credit card.
I don't approve of Barracuda's behaviour. If they're blocking
/24s because of some bad machines, you should not have to pay for
delisting one IP. I
Am 21.06.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Antony Stone:
On Sunday 21 June 2015 at 19:23:58 (EU time), Reindl Harald wrote:
spammers don't invest money, never
Ah, my bad understanding - I followed the link you posted earlier
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233 which pointed me to
http://ww
On Sunday 21 June 2015 at 19:23:58 (EU time), Reindl Harald wrote:
> spammers don't invest money, never
Ah, my bad understanding - I followed the link you posted earlier
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233 which pointed me to
http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/641?article=641 whi
On 21 Jun 2015, at 10:33, Jered Floyd wrote:
Richard,
The BRBL may have listed the entire /24 that includes your sending
IPs.
Painful experience has shown that Barracuda won't hear your requests
for
delisting, and the listing may never go away.
I believe you've got it in one. I heard bac
Am 21.06.2015 um 18:58 schrieb Antony Stone:
On Sunday 21 June 2015 at 17:22:58 (EU time), Jim Popovitch wrote:
I appear to be getting a shakedown scam from Barracuda Networks.
You are not being shaken down, but you might be slandering. ;-)
I'm fairly certain that BN isn't making much prof
On Sunday 21 June 2015 at 17:22:58 (EU time), Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > I appear to be getting a shakedown scam from Barracuda Networks.
>
> You are not being shaken down, but you might be slandering. ;-)
>
> I'm fairly certain that BN isn't making much profit off of your $20.
> What they are ge
> I appear to be getting a shakedown scam from Barracuda Networks.
You are not being shaken down, but you might be slandering. ;-)
I'm fairly certain that BN isn't making much profit off of your $20.
What they are getting is your commitment, and your ID, that one or
more IP addrs under your cont
Am 21.06.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Jeroen de Neef:
I wonder what their justification is for doing this.
the questoon is how many addtional IP's on the /24 where in fact sending
spam, see http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233
2015-06-21 16:33 GMT+02:00 Jered Floyd mailto:je...@convi
I wonder what their justification is for doing this.
2015-06-21 16:33 GMT+02:00 Jered Floyd :
>
> Richard,
>
> > The BRBL may have listed the entire /24 that includes your sending IPs.
> > Painful experience has shown that Barracuda won't hear your requests for
> > delisting, and the listing may
Richard,
> The BRBL may have listed the entire /24 that includes your sending IPs.
> Painful experience has shown that Barracuda won't hear your requests for
> delisting, and the listing may never go away.
I believe you've got it in one. I heard back from a colleague on the same /24
(though n
figuration issue, but there is a
>> link for one-time removal.
>>
>> Below that the page says "One way to get your email through spam
>> filters even if you are listed on the BRBL is to register your domain
>> and IPs at EmailReg.org." OK, sounds good, I can p
On 21/06/2015 01:49, Jered Floyd wrote:
> Harald,
>
>> no you don't understand how a Barracuda appliance works
>> emailreg.org is a whitelist like the ones spamassassin is using
>>
>> in case of a barracuda appliance it overrides the RBL
>
> It'
has been blocked so I can't
> determine if there is a configuration issue, but there is a link for one-time
> removal.
Ask them why, they are under no obligation to remove you, but at least
you'll know why your listed specifically.
> However, I click through to emailreg.org [2] and AF
n/"; Visiting that page
> provides no information on the specific reason my MTA has been blocked
> so I can't determine if there is a configuration issue, but there is a
> link for one-time removal.
>
> Below that the page says "One way to get your email through spam
>
Am 20.06.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Jered Floyd:
Harald,
no you don't understand how a Barracuda appliance works
emailreg.org is a whitelist like the ones spamassassin is using
in case of a barracuda appliance it overrides the RBL
It's a whitelist that appears to be based solely
Harald,
> no you don't understand how a Barracuda appliance works
> emailreg.org is a whitelist like the ones spamassassin is using
>
> in case of a barracuda appliance it overrides the RBL
It's a whitelist that appears to be based solely on paying Barracuda a fee.
Tha
;One way to get your email through spam filters
even if you are listed on the BRBL is to register your domain and IPs at
EmailReg.org." OK, sounds good, I can prove that my IP address is
allowed to send for my domains -- I thought that was what SPF and DKIM
are for (which are configured) but wh
tion issue, but there
is a link for one-time removal.
Below that the page says "One way to get your email through spam filters even
if you are listed on the BRBL is to register your domain and IPs at
EmailReg.org." OK, sounds good, I can prove that my IP address is allowed to
send for
> -Original Message-
> From: LuKreme [mailto:krem...@kreme.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 4:59 p.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: emailreg.org - tainted white list
>
> On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> > So far
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
> It's also fair to say any ESP such as Return Path taking money to
> deliver mail should be optimising it {or offering advice on
> optimisation) so it does *not* score high. Otherwise what are their
> customers paying them for?
Return Path is no
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
So far only 1 person on this list has claimed to have been hit by Spam
that has been let through by the Habeas rules in SA.
I'm the only one? Really? That doesn’t jibe with my memory, but I'm not
scanning th
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/16/2009 6:16 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems runnin
LuKreme writes:
> On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
>> So far only 1 person on this list has claimed to have been hit by Spam that
>> has been let through by the Habeas rules in SA.
>
>
> I'm the only one? Really? That doesn’t jibe with my memory, but I'm not
> scanning the e
>
> I'm the only one? Really? That doesn't jibe with my memory,
> but I'm not scanning the entire list to prove you wrong.
>
> Really?
>
> Yeah, sorry, not buying it.
>
LuKreme et al,
you were not the only one much goes under or over the radar on the
list...
re those rules, we see 2
On 16-Dec-2009, at 16:11, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> So far only 1 person on this list has claimed to have been hit by Spam that
> has been let through by the Habeas rules in SA.
I'm the only one? Really? That doesn’t jibe with my memory, but I'm not
scanning the entire list to prove you wrong
On 12/16/2009 6:16 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems running ordinary sa-update on 3.2.5.
they can adj
>
> The trouble with this is how often are these rules being re-examined
> and re-evaluated?
>
> Not that often. HABEAS has been through three iterations since those
> rules were set at −4 and −8.
>
> What is enabled by default should be the safest possible settings.
> Relying on a third party t
From: "LuKreme"
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:56
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth, I just ran sa-stats.pl against my last ten days of
logs. The only mention of habeas was:
10HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 367 1.450.00 17.36
So it h
From: "Mike Cardwell"
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:33
On 16/12/2009 14:23, LuKreme wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail wi
From: "Res"
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 03:18
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial c
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems running ordinary sa-update on 3.2.5.
My rules (in /var/lib/spamassassin) still include the stron
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, J.D. Falk wrote:
Which finally brings us back to the core questions which seem to go
unanswered:
They've all been answered many times, in other threads.
Perhaps I missed the messages, but it seems to me that the deep issues are
*debated* a little, but never really answere
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> For what it's worth, I just ran sa-stats.pl against my last ten days of logs.
> The only mention of habeas was:
>
> 10HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 367 1.450.00 17.36
>
> So it hit on 17.36% of my Ham, and 0% of my Spam.
With
On 16/12/2009 14:23, LuKreme wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending through
too many spams, use it. Even lists that hav
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Three points:
1) It is known this list is read by spammers to learn what we are
doing. I've verified this with "challenge/response" tactics including
taunting more than once.
Sh! They'll hear you! :)
2) On several occasions now Richard has tried to torpedo
> Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm "dense". But to
> spell out my question more explicitly:
>
> what do you mean by "personal response spam"? Is that just
> Richard's on-list responses we've all seen? Or something
> else? (did I miss that part of the conversation?). And what
>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:39:25 -0600
"McDonald, Dan" wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:13 AM, "Bowie Bailey"
> wrote:
>
> > Christian Brel wrote:
> >> The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered
> >> sensibly; WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE
> >> SCORING RULE
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:13 AM, "Bowie Bailey"
wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered sensibly;
WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE SCORING RULE
THAT
FAVOURS A COMMERCIAL BULK MAILER. Namely the negative score for
Habeas?
On 12/16/2009 3:23 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Dec-2009, at 07:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending thro
On 16-Dec-2009, at 07:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
> a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
> use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending through
> too many spams, use it. Even
Christian Brel wrote:
> The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered sensibly;
> WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE SCORING RULE THAT
> FAVOURS A COMMERCIAL BULK MAILER. Namely the negative score for Habeas?
>
This point has been answered. SA ships with that r
On ons 16 dec 2009 12:10:11 CET, Res wrote
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA, the day it is,
is the day > I look elsewhere.
please post on this maillist what you do when you find replacement for sa
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such dra
Res wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>
>> Christian Brel wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
>>> commercial considerations are not so obvious?
>>
>> No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
>
>
> no whitelist should ever
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
>
> > Christian Brel wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
> >> commercial considerations are not so obvious?
> >
> > No need for such drastic measures - it's o
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
the day
Christian Brel wrote:
> Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
> commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
r threads. Habeas
> wasn't involved in emailreg.org, though. No connection at all.
I don't recall anyone claiming Emailreg.org was related to Habeas?
Habeas has enough bulkers on it to make a simple paupers 'pay to spam'
list like Emailreg pale into total insignificance.
Whist
litate the delivery of UCE/UBE/SPAM. To point that out is *not*
scuffling any attempt to block spam. To the contrary. Are we clear on
that or are you ignoring that?
All that is required is for Spamassassin to default install with
NEUTRAL (0 point) rules for Habeas {or any other p2s whitelist it
chooses
From: "J.D. Falk"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:28
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
Which finally brings us back to the core questions which seem to go
unanswered:
They've all been answered many times, in other threads. Habeas wasn't
invo
From: "Rob McEwen"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't ans
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Which finally brings us back to the core questions which seem to go
> unanswered:
They've all been answered many times, in other threads. Habeas wasn't involved
in emailreg.org, though. No connection at all.
--
J.D. F
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rob McEwen wrote:
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question. Per
jdow wrote:
>> jdow wrote:
>>> his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
>> Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
> A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
> it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm "dense". But to spell ou
jdow wrote:
From: "Rob McEwen"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Properly known
From: "Christian Brel"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:54
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
Perhaps are some kind of spammer trying to divert attention from
yourself?
I have longer bona fides on this list than I suspect you
do and my partner is a currently inactive SARE
From: "Rob McEwen"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
{^_^}
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
> From: "Charles Gregory"
> Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
>
>
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> >> If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there
> >> wouldn't be an issue.
> >
> > The taunting *is* the
jdow wrote:
> his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
r...@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Dec-2009, at 09:42, Charles Gregory wrote:
The 'issue' (as I see it) is that a great many servers install a
'standard' SA 'package' So it is important to
to make the best possible assessment of all rules...
The trouble with that is exactly wh
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there wouldn't
be an issue.
The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design and
defaults, are carried o
On 15-Dec-2009, at 09:42, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Clarification: I, for one, was only proposing that the whitelisting
>> plugins and rules that query external databases are removed from the
>> standard ruleset and sa_update and placed in a separate li
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Clarification: I, for one, was only proposing that the whitelisting
plugins and rules that query external databases are removed from the
standard ruleset and sa_update and placed in a separate library of
optional rules.
The 'issue' (as I see it) is th
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 07:29 -0600, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> That's the issue with pulling all of the whitelists out of the scoring
> mix - the whitelist components are part of the mix that allows 5 points
> to indicate spam. And I was trying to counter the argument that we
> should simply rip th
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 23:07 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> > I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
> > have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
> > guess.
>
> someone, somewhere is
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:40:44 +0100
mouss wrote:
> Bill Landry a écrit :
> > Christian Brel, AKA "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" (among other aliases),
> > is back...
> >
> > Bill
>
>
> he switched MUA, but forgot to switch "helo" and get a different IP
> range...
>
Good work Columbo. Tell me, how mu
On tir 15 dec 2009 00:32:31 CET, mouss wrote
Can all the guys who think 20 isn't much send me 10$ each? I promise to
write a song for you.
what if the snail postman did not get paid ?, how many snailmails
would not be sent ?, its wonder me that email is completely free of
charge in the fi
On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> I ask again, on the issue of whitelists, is there a serious issue with
> spammers targetting white-listed IP's as favored candidates for hacking?
> I'm okay with the answer being 'no'. I'm sure people with large servers and
> good statistics
Bill Landry a écrit :
> Christian Brel, AKA "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" (among other aliases), is
> back...
>
> Bill
he switched MUA, but forgot to switch "helo" and get a different IP range...
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
brel.spamassassin091...@copperproducti
get through either ReturnPath or emailreg.org.
> It takes time to run through the hoops in either case. And $20k is a whole
> different ballpark for dollar expense than $200.
>
> It's not bulletproof. But it's probably worth a small negative score to
> allow legitimate e
mment, the emailreg.org _should_ be able to be
disabled by customers, but, then again, you can always vote with your feet
and simply not use their systems, they will quickly get the picture, but
sadly a lot of people just have no clue, there are afterall, plenty of
saleman out there who could s
Hello,
> The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design
> and
> defaults, are carried on by numerous individuals in a quite civilized
> manner. But when someone starts throwing arond stupid accusations, then
> the person attacked focuses their efforts on 'defending' themselve
On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
guess.
someone, somewhere is alreay converting ClamV signatures to HUGE (slow)
rule files, forgot where
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:39 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> your modules are all there already and much of it is already managed as
> you suggest: they're called rules.. you can even switch them on or off,
> or add your own "modules" /plugins/modules.
>
> SA provides an Open Source FRAMEWORK
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:23 +, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
> associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
> may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
> workload by handing off res
On 12/14/2009 10:23 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for m
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for maintaining and bugfixing
such modules to external
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Bob O'Brien wrote:
I can mostly just offer opinion, and that would be that whitelisting is
not (yet) in wide enough use to have become a sufficiently attractive
target.
Which brings us back to the 'rational version' of the discussion about SA
weighing whitelists favorably
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
