On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate the hosting
them removed by the instructions on their web... I have no proofs they don't
delist from DUL if you fullfill their (imho proper) requirements
anyway, this is getting way off topic. whatever you I think of how
sorbs should have been run (and thinking != running), its death, if
confirmed, is sad
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure of SORBS.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
In the past, I did some tests to determine which lists
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Moss wrote:
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
I respect any block list for targeting those
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure of SORBS.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
In the past, I did some tests to determine which
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
Jeff Moss
All i read is OMG THEY BANNED MY COLORFULL OPT OUT NEWSLETTER111
Sorry i
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase postives.
stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Jeff Moss wrote:
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a bad
name.
As an interesting side-note, when I went looking for fresh RBL stats
I found a lot of indications that SORBS
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:uh...@fantomas.sk]
IMPORTANT: If sorbs does not get picked-up by a new host, will SA
developers be ready to roll-out an SA update to remove the sorbs
rules, so
that we don't suffer a bunch of timeouts? Or how does that work
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Moss wrote:
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
I respect any
started blocking manually because they are on
neither spamhaus nor sorbs.
Yep, that looks familiar...
# The Solo Networks 8.19.136.0 - 8.19.143.255
8.19.136.0/21REJECT
# The Solo Networks 67.218.160.0 - 67.218.191.255
# 67.218.164.0/24 Surpass Solutions - cybersonicview.com
Hello.
From: Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org
Subject: Re: SORBS bites the dust
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:17:03 +0200
Should i care to investigate and maybe reject the the entire block? I'm
pretty new on hunting down sources. All I know is the whois databse
which is mostly useless
delisted an IP in the past, and I have been watching
people trying to delist a block but without clues on how to do it...
anyway, this is getting way off topic. whatever you I think of how
sorbs should have been run (and thinking != running), its death, if
confirmed, is sad news
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
Res a écrit :
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for dul
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a
detterent i think sunno we never paid
This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if
in Brisbane where I am, last I
heard he moved down south (he maybe be back, have not had a need to talk
to him since so dont know)
SORBS is heavily used in AU, and blocks far more than spamcop or spamhaus,
might be different for other parts of the world, I dunno, but will be a
large spam
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for dul
On 23.06.09 11:07, Res wrote:
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent
i think sunno we never paid
well, we've had out
, but i also have some very annoying
hosts on the radar which i started blocking manually because they are on
neither spamhaus nor sorbs.
Yep, that looks familiar...
# The Solo Networks 8.19.136.0 - 8.19.143.255
8.19.136.0/21REJECT
# The Solo Networks 67.218.160.0
Noted this over at NANAE;
QUOTE:
All,
Please feel free to forward this message to any other location/mailing
list.
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS
All together now,
3... 2... 1...
WOOHOOO!!!
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Noted this over at NANAE;
QUOTE:
All,
Please feel free to forward this message to any other location/mailing
list.
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
All together now,
3... 2... 1...
WOOHOOO!!!
EXPN?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate the hosting contract.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure of SORBS.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
In the past, I did some tests to determine which lists
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate
postives. Not 'bad',
but just poor enough that I prefer to give PBL a weighted score in SA
rather than run it as a poison pill in the MTA. Though with everything
I've been seeing lately, I'm darned tempted to ramp it up. Especially if
sorbs DUL list is going to go bye-bye
Perhaps
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS
to resolve it in a fairly
resonable amount of time. I don't recall even paying a dime.
From: Jeremy Morton [ad...@game-point.net]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:01 PM
To: rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SORBS bites the dust
Jeremy Morton wrote:
You then have to pay their tithe money to get people to start
receiving your e-mail again.
sorbs doesn't charge for delisting.
Actually no trustworthy bl does.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 15:06, Arvid Picciania...@exys.org wrote:
Jeremy Morton wrote:
You then have to pay their tithe money to get people to start receiving
your e-mail again.
sorbs doesn't charge for delisting.
Actually no trustworthy bl does.
Technically correct, but not literally
list, which was next to
useless. PBL has always been a highly effective list, however, and I
used it gladly until I switched to zen, which includes it. It is,
after all, basically a list of IPs that the IP owners say should not
be sending email directly.
SORBS DUL list was, at a time, a bit
in order to get off their
list in less than a year.
Actually, it is 1 year PER SPAM, or $50 PER SPAM. This was a way of
punishing actual spammers. I never heard of SORBS forcing anyone to
wait a year or pay $50 a spam for accidental listing, temporary
failures, or anything else along those
it as a poison pill in the MTA. Though with everything
I've been seeing lately, I'm darned tempted to ramp it up. Especially if
sorbs DUL list is going to go bye-bye
Perhaps it is time to do some new comparisons? Does anyone have some
stats on the effectiveness of various RBL's versus
). We were able to resolve it
in a fairly resonable amount of time. I don't recall even paying a dime.
payment were only needed for spam, not for dul
anyway, this is getting way off topic. whatever you I think of how
sorbs should have been run (and thinking != running), its death
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
You can wait 1 year ... or pay $50 to some approved charity. So, yes,
you can not pay anything, if you're willing to wait a year. And if
you do pay, you don't pay THEM exactly. But, it still remains that
they expect some form of financial offset in order
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for dul
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent
i think sunno we never paid
anyway, this is getting way off topic. whatever you I think of how
sorbs should have been run
, whether they
enforce it reliably or not, the effect can be the same. (don't tell me
they should have just emailed them! -- bs. It's not the burden of
every person on the planet to second guess whether or not their
official policy is their _actual_ policy, but it IS SORBS burden to
live with the PR
I recently (~26 Feb 2007) submitted two RBL blocks to SORBS
(85.93.37.128-85.93.37.191 and 86.212.217.0-86.212.217.255). My emails
created 2 tickets on rt.sorbs.net, but the tickets remain new, even
though the autoreply said they should be handled in 24-48 hours. The
tickets did get moved from
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
See the third heading on this wiki page that tells you how to resolve
this specific issue:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DynablockIssues
Daryl
Thank you. That solved the problem. Upgrade to new SA and Postfix
versions and everything plays nicely now, as
Xepher writes:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
See the third heading on this wiki page that tells you how to resolve
this specific issue:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DynablockIssues
Daryl
Thank you. That solved the problem. Upgrade to new SA and Postfix
versions and
Justin Mason wrote:
feel free to add explanatory text so that it will in future ;)
Done. Would've done so sooner, but it listed the page as immutable.
And I didn't realize that changed if I created a login. Hopefully that
should let a few more people find that answer easier.
--James
On 8/14/2006 6:45 PM, Xepher wrote:
I've got a server configured with postfix and spamassassin. The
mailserver is the only one for the domain, and thus receives mail
from
other servers, as well as letting users connect directly (with smtp
auth) to send mail. Everything works fine, EXCEPT when
I've got a server configured with postfix and spamassassin. The
mailserver is the only one for the domain, and thus receives mail from
other servers, as well as letting users connect directly (with smtp
auth) to send mail. Everything works fine, EXCEPT when users send email
to each other. In those
On Tue, August 15, 2006 00:45, Xepher wrote:
Any help would be appreciated, as I'd really rather not disable SPF and
RBL completely.
i had the same problem once :-)
see attached
for rbl check the internal_networks and trusted_networks, spf test is disable
on internal networks, so make sure
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i had the same problem once :-)
see attached
for rbl check the internal_networks and trusted_networks, spf test is disable
on internal networks, so make sure your smtp auth ip is not listed as internal
in your spamassassin, but it should still be in trusted_networks
On Tue, August 15, 2006 02:23, Xepher wrote:
I tried them, and still have the exact same problem. Any other ideas?
clear_internal_networks
internal_networks 127.0.0.1
clear_trusted_networks
trusted_networks smtp-auth-ip
trusted_networks 127.0.0.1
save my msg with full header
and then test my
On 8/14/2006 6:45 PM, Xepher wrote:
I've got a server configured with postfix and spamassassin. The
mailserver is the only one for the domain, and thus receives mail from
other servers, as well as letting users connect directly (with smtp
auth) to send mail. Everything works fine, EXCEPT when
I tried sending a message to the list yesterday and it never came
through. I finally found the rejection due to my IP listed on SORBS.
Although I am looking into why my static IP is listed for dynamic
reasons, many think SORBS should not be used, including
www.dnsstuff.com. Is SORBS widely used
many think SORBS should not be used,
including www.dnsstuff.com
I know that this doesn't answer your main questions... but..
I would agree that SORBS should not be used for outright blocking. However,
I personally wouldn't even use SBL or XBL or DSBL or anything else for
outright blocking
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:26:10 +0200, Sietse van Zanen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] opined:
You might have a static IP, but if it's from an ISP DSL/Cable
range, it will still be in SORBS.
All dynamic lists have false positives (including ours). However, if
you have a non-standard reverse pointer to your
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 11:11 -0400, David Cary Hart wrote:
However, if
you have a non-standard reverse pointer to your domain with adequate
TTL
non-standard reverse pointer? Our TTL is 300, is that 'adequate'.
P.S. - sorry for the direct message David.
--
Robert
-standard unique reverse pointer. Please note that you then need
to add an A record for the host-to-IP address.
No. A 300 second TTL is not adequate. SORBS requires 12 hours. We
require three hours but we are more flexible than SORBS.
--
Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam at the Source: http://www.TQMcube.com
I had a similar problem recently, after 5 years on the same static
Business IP it suddenly appeared in SORBS. In true Murphy's law
fashion the first I knew of it was about 8PM on a Saturday night, when
a message to this list bounced with reference to SORBS.
After a few days dickering with my ISP
jdow wrote:
Extortion means extracting funds by some form of criminal means.
Extortion in the form of, pay or we block access to your business,
is as wrong as pay or we'll break your legs.
{^_^}
SORBS isn't blocking access to anybody's business. The worst
they could be accused
jdow a écrit :
Over here in the US it's spelled extortion,
I've used the french version...
and indeed it is perhaps
over the line just a bit. If some hungry or simple publicity seeking
class action lawyer gets wind of it then SORBS may be history. {o.o}
this will probably happen someday
I don't believe what SORBS is doing fits the legal definition of
extortion... no matter how you spell it. :-) There is no threat of
either violence or criminal wrong doing and SORBS is operating a legal
service...
Re,
Clay
On 2/28/2006 at 1:12:14 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mouss
[EMAIL
I don't believe what SORBS is doing fits the legal definition of
extortion... no matter how you spell it. :-) There is no threat of
either violence or criminal wrong doing and SORBS is operating a legal
service...
From dictionary.com:
1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use
Maybe #3, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt it. Never
#2; SORBS holds no official position or power. When you make an accusation
of extortion, you better be using the legal definition. I'm no lawyer, but I
am pretty sure the legal definition involves some force coupled
Clay Davis wrote:
Maybe #3, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt it. Never #2; SORBS holds no
official position or power. When you make an accusation of extortion, you better be
using the legal definition. I'm no lawyer, but I am pretty sure the legal definition
involves
Clay Davis a écrit :
Maybe #3, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt it. Never
#2; SORBS holds no official position or power. When you make an accusation
of extortion, you better be using the legal definition. I'm no lawyer, but
I am pretty sure the legal definition
, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt
it. Never
#2; SORBS holds no official position or power. When you make an
accusation
of extortion, you better be using the legal definition. I'm no
lawyer, but
I am pretty sure the legal definition involves some force coupled
Extortion means extracting funds by some form of criminal means.
Extortion in the form of, pay or we block access to your business,
is as wrong as pay or we'll break your legs.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: Clay Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe what SORBS is doing fits
jdow wrote:
Extortion means extracting funds by some form of criminal means.
Extortion in the form of, pay or we block access to your business,
is as wrong as pay or we'll break your legs.
{^_^}
SORBS isn't blocking access to anybody's business. The worst they could be
accused
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jdow wrote:
Extortion means extracting funds by some form of criminal means.
Extortion in the form of, pay or we block access to your business,
is as wrong as pay or we'll break your legs.
{^_^}
SORBS isn't blocking access to anybody's business. The worst
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jdow wrote:
Extortion means extracting funds by some form of criminal means.
Extortion in the form of, pay or we block access to your business,
is as wrong as pay or we'll break your legs.
{^_^}
SORBS isn't blocking access to anybody's business
One of our email-servers is blacklisted by SORBS and they want us to
pay $50 to get the server taken of the list.
On enquiry on why we were blacklisted, it came to light that it was
blacklisted on false accounts - a valid mailing list related to one of
our academic departments on campus.
However
I noticed you did not say your mailing list was a confirmed opt-in.
If it does not do a confirmed opt-in, you should fix that. Otherwise you
will not stay delisted long. Could get expensive too at $50 a pop.
On enquiry on why we were blacklisted, it came to light that it was
blacklisted on
Johann Spies a écrit :
One of our email-servers is blacklisted by SORBS and they want us to
pay $50 to get the server taken of the list.
In many countries, this is called extorsion. but this isn't the right
forum to debate this.
[snip]
How do the members of this list handle situations
On 2/27/2006 3:47 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
One of our email-servers is blacklisted by SORBS and they want us to
pay $50 to get the server taken of the list.
I had an entire /16 blocked by sorbs a small while ago.
How do the members of this list handle situations like that?
Three ways (only
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Johann Spies wrote:
New information came to light and I retract my insinuation that SORBS
was unreasonable: Apparently the owner(s) of the spesific mailing
list populated the list with names harvested from the internet.
Apologies to SORBS.
Regards
Johann
That would
jdow a écrit :
They may not be aware of the reasons for the listing. And as I stated,
it is the black lister's job to keep the black list accurate. It is not
the busy ISP's job to do her own work AND the black lister's work in
the face of the arrogance at least the SORBS people exude
the SORBS people exude on their
web site. At least SORBS appears to be a lazy collection of SOBs.
From http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=1.2.3.4 (replace with whatever
IP):
NEVER BLOCK WITH: MAPS-DUL, SORBS-DUHL (these knowingly list IPs that do not meet
listing criteria).
(for maps
.*...
same for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year,
and it seems their duhl is arbitrary (see dnsstuff url that I posted
before, but I have other evidences). so while I appreciate the efforts
that sorbs do to fight spam, and I understand that it's not an easy
battle, I
for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year, and it seems their
duhl is arbitrary (see dnsstuff url that I posted before, but I have other evidences).
so while I appreciate the efforts that sorbs do to fight spam, and I understand that
it's not an easy battle, I won't accept
relays, but heh, I'm not the father of email.
if you want more infos, contact me offline (but I'll need to use another
relay, and I'm not certain it'll be accepted by earthlink:).
same for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year,
and it seems their duhl is arbitrary (see
of email.
Just for grins methinks I might send them an email asking. I shall
endeavor to be polite rather than knock heads together. {^_-}
if you want more infos, contact me offline (but I'll need to use another relay, and I'm
not certain it'll be accepted by earthlink:).
same for sorbs
Jdow wrote on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:39:42 -0800:
They are using this as a means of
randomizing access to the dozen or so mail servers for earthlink.net.
You mean they randomly rotate these IPs? That *is* dynamic.
How about making sure the access to their mail servers is not all
directed to
Jdow wrote on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:39:42 -0800:
No, that is an improper assumption.
Well, if you do a little more research and go to SORBS and check that IP
you see that it's been in the db since June! If you do even more research
and query all known RBLs you find that it's been in NJABL since
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jdow wrote on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:39:42 -0800:
No, that is an improper assumption.
Well, if you do a little more research and go to SORBS and check that IP
you see that it's been in the db since June! If you do even more research
and query all known
assignments? I'm quite convinced that they would not have *any* problem to
comply with SORBS requirements and still keep whatever rotating practice they
have for POP3 with minimal effort. It's just that they don't seem to care. Go
ask them.
It's always the same. People are using RBLs for years
*any* problem to
comply with SORBS requirements and still keep whatever rotating practice they
have for POP3 with minimal effort. It's just that they don't seem to care. Go
ask them.
They may not be aware of the reasons for the listing. And as I stated,
it is the black lister's job to keep
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 25 November 2005 19:09, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Too bad the telco is the only game in town. At least their DNS servers
haven't been rooted this week (yet, anyway).
I'm sure glad you added the (yet, anyway) qualification Daryl, cause
they do get it,
Graham Murray wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, my business DSL provider could be less brain dead and not
set a 30 min TTL for their entire forward zone (and 1 day for their
reverse zone), but I suspect there are lots of people out there in the
same situation.
It seems they have taken leave of their database. The Earthlink mailers
have somehow gotten listed in their DUL listings. They are quite positively
not DUL based. If SORBS can get this screwed up I'd suggest lowering their
scores in the rules files.
===8---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ dig 209.93.86.209
...
It seems they have taken leave of their database. The Earthlink mailers
have somehow gotten listed in their DUL listings. They are quite positively
not DUL based. If SORBS can get this screwed up I'd suggest lowering their
scores in the rules files.
===8---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ dig
From: List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
It seems they have taken leave of their database. The Earthlink mailers
have somehow gotten listed in their DUL listings. They are quite positively
not DUL based. If SORBS can get this screwed up I'd suggest lowering their
scores in the rules files
I've got to agree that the TTL criteria doesn't necessarily reflect
reality... at least in these parts.
Using SORBS' self-help system, I can delist my residential cable IP
which is pseudo-static but I cannot delist my business DSL IP which is
static (and 3 times the price).
Of course, my
On Friday 25 November 2005 19:09, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I've got to agree that the TTL criteria doesn't necessarily reflect
reality... at least in these parts.
Using SORBS' self-help system, I can delist my residential cable IP
which is pseudo-static but I cannot delist my business DSL IP
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, my business DSL provider could be less brain dead and not
set a 30 min TTL for their entire forward zone (and 1 day for their
reverse zone), but I suspect there are lots of people out there in the
same situation.
Where the provider
Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 02:46, Daryl C. W. O'Shea a écrit :
Jerome Mainka wrote:
The sender and the recipient belong together to the same provider, and
the final server of the received path is not the host on which SA is run.
Which server is scanning the mail?
The server is a proxy pop3
Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 03:29, Matt Kettler a écrit :
At 04:22 PM 10/19/2005, Jerome Mainka wrote:
same behavior. Actually, if I empty the internal/trusted networks set, I
get the same behavior.
Warning: you can never empty the trusted networks set. If you don't have
one declared, SA will
.
your pop proxy may add received headers (aka fetchmail)
The only
solution would be to skip_rbl_checks. But the performance of SA would
dramatically decrease. Am I wrong?
mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (smtp1.wanadoo.fr 193.252.22.30) is listed in SORBS
(as a spam source). so unless you set the score
Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 13:18, mouss a écrit :
your pop proxy may add received headers (aka fetchmail)
No.
mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (smtp1.wanadoo.fr 193.252.22.30) is listed in SORBS
(as a spam source). so unless you set the score of _SORBS rules, you're
gonna hit. but then you'll miss spam
Jerome Mainka a écrit :
Hello,
I finally got the point of what is wrong with the mail I was dealing with.
=== Received headers
Received: from mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr)
by mwinb0504 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:49:36 +0200
Received: from me-wanadoo.net
Hello,
I am very confused about the way SpamAssassin triggers these rules. Here is
the Received headers of a legitimate message:
=== Received headers
Received: from mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr)
by mwinb0504 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:49:36 +0200
listed in both NJABL and SORBS
dynamic address databases.
Pierre Thomson
BIC
-Original Message-
From: Jerome Mainka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:02 AM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL
Hello,
I am very confused about
Le Mercredi 19 Octobre 2005 16:56, Pierre Thomson a écrit :
The first hop is supposed to be ignored and the last 2 are all trusted.
The originating IP 193.251.71.180 is indeed listed in both NJABL and SORBS
dynamic address databases.
OK, I understand that. But the why is it offending to send
Jerome Mainka wrote:
Le Mercredi 19 Octobre 2005 16:56, Pierre Thomson a écrit :
The first hop is supposed to be ignored and the last 2 are all trusted.
The originating IP 193.251.71.180 is indeed listed in both NJABL and SORBS
dynamic address databases.
OK, I understand
Le Mercredi 19 Octobre 2005 21:13, Matt Kettler a écrit :
Jerome Mainka wrote:
OK, I understand that. But the why is it offending to send a mail from a
dynamic address?
It's not, it's only offensive to send it from a dynamic IP directly to a
trusted server.
OK. (Sorry if I am a little slow
From: Jerome Mainka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le Mercredi 19 Octobre 2005 21:13, Matt Kettler a écrit :
Jerome Mainka wrote:
OK, I understand that. But the why is it offending to send a mail from a
dynamic address?
It's not, it's only offensive to send it from a dynamic IP directly to a
trusted
Le Mercredi 19 Octobre 2005 22:40, jdow a écrit :
Do not send directly. Send through your ISP's mail service. That is
about the only way to avoid the dialup problem you are having. You ARE
on a dialup address. So you get tagged that way when you try to send
email directly.
I don't send
Jerome Mainka wrote:
The sender and the recipient belong together to the same provider, and the
final server of the received path is not the host on which SA is run.
Which server is scanning the mail?
You'll have a better chance of getting a solution if you attach the
*complete* headers,
201 - 300 of 355 matches
Mail list logo
