On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:17:33 +
Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michelle Konzack on 10/11/06 19:11, wrote:
> > Am 2006-10-26 22:45:56, schrieb Peter Teunissen:
> >> If you're looking for a way to get rid of picture spam, try the
> >SARE > rules (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) for spam
Michelle Konzack on 10/11/06 19:11, wrote:
Am 2006-10-26 22:45:56, schrieb Peter Teunissen:
If you're looking for a way to get rid of picture spam, try the SARE
rules (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) for spamassassin. I use these
rulesets and get very high scores on the picture spam I get. Sim
Am 2006-10-26 22:45:56, schrieb Peter Teunissen:
> If you're looking for a way to get rid of picture spam, try the SARE
> rules (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) for spamassassin. I use these
> rulesets and get very high scores on the picture spam I get. Simply
> add these rules to your setup u
Am 2006-10-26 00:47:46, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> Tim Post wrote:
>
> A: Because it reverses the normal order of conversation.
> Q: Why is top-posting considered undesirable by many?
>
> >What I can't seem to stop is the huge influx of these "penny stock"
> >spams. They're getting smarter than baye
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:37:46AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I didn't explain that fully as it didn't seem relevant to the point I
> > was trying to make. I receive the vast majority of my mail directly
> > by SMTP to the machine which has my personal m
George Borisov writes:
> On my IMAP server at home I have a set of scripts that harvest a
> particular folder in the account and feed all messages to sa-learn. If a
> spam slips through then I just move it into that folder and forget about
> it.
I do something similar. I also have my script copy
Peter Teunissen wrote:
>
>
> OTH, I just looked at some of my recent image spam and when I substract
> the bayes score from the final score, most of it would still be tagged
> as spam (I use a threshold of 5).
True, but those messages that get through tend to have almost no
score assigned to t
Paul E Condon writes:
> Please excuse an ignorant question: Into what software (name?) should
> these rules be added?
Spamassassin.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I didn't explain that fully as it didn't seem relevant to the point I
> was trying to make. I receive the vast majority of my mail directly
> by SMTP to the machine which has my personal mail store. Do a 'dig
> tonix.org mx' (my domain) and you'll get jynn
David Hart wrote:
> Then perhaps you should've made it clear that that's what you meant.
> But this is beside the point.
My point was quite clear. I've gone over it in the past. I never
mentioned "in this conversation". I did, in fact, say it was That was your
misunderstanding.
> I've had
David Hart wrote:
> It proves the point that T.J. Duchene made to which you gave those
> examples in reply. Here's what was said (and what you snipped from your
> reply to me):
Can we say... "out of context"?
>> T.J. Duchene wrote:
>>
>>> Don't expect Outlook, Thunderbird, Mutt, Pine, or eve
On 2006-10-28 21:07:35 +0100, David Hart wrote:
> When I'm away from home I ssh into my home box to get mail. If that
> became a problem (because, perhaps, of firewall rules), I'd probably
> setup ssh to listen on port 80 as a first choice but, imap would
> definitely be an option.
I currently ha
On 2006-10-27 11:15:56 -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> On a related note, according to
> http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=hoshame#domsum , there are many popular
> ISPs (verizon.net, rr.com etc) in US which dont care a single thing about
> spam emanating from their networks.
I confirm. I s
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:43:21PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-10-26 12:56:07 +0100, David Hart wrote:
> > I'll be the first to admit that mutt is not ideal for reading pop
> > accounts but I've found it very useful for things like testing when
> > setting up pop/imap servers.
>
> AFA
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:43:23PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Hart wrote:
> > I have no need to read the archives as I have a threaded view of this
> > conversation in front of me as I write.
>
> Uh, doesn't help when it wasn't *IN* this conversation. But dozens of
> times over the pas
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:44:52PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Hart wrote:
> > Most of what you say kind of proves the OP's point. You mention 'hooks'
> > which means using programs _external_ to the email client.
>
> Er, no. Hooks in the client does not equate to requiring a full-blow
David Hart wrote:
> Most of what you say kind of proves the OP's point. You mention 'hooks'
> which means using programs _external_ to the email client.
Er, no. Hooks in the client does not equate to requiring a full-blown MTA
along with the problems that arise from it.
--
Steve C
David Hart wrote:
> I have no need to read the archives as I have a threaded view of this
> conversation in front of me as I write.
Uh, doesn't help when it wasn't *IN* this conversation. But dozens of
times over the past *5 years*. Hence, get thee to the archives.
> I didn't realise that p
Håkon Alstadheim wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> [about the penny-stock image spams]
> >Yes, I get several a day myself. The actual "text" of the message is
> >often actually an image, while the body of the message is randomly
> >selected sentences or words from a collection which would make a
> >Ba
Mike McCarty wrote:
[about the penny-stock image spams]
Yes, I get several a day myself. The actual "text" of the message is
often actually an image, while the body of the message is randomly
selected sentences or words from a collection which would make a
Bayesian filter delete most of my e-mail
On Friday 27 October 2006 13:58, Pollywog wrote:
> On Friday 27 October 2006 15:18, celejar wrote:
> > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by
> > > the amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a sp
celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote:
> > > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by
> >
On Friday 27 October 2006 15:18, celejar wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by the
> > amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a spammer uses a zombie
> > operation and starts sending spam
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:00:33AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Chris Walters writes:
> > As for stopping spam, as we have recently seen, word lists are not going
> > to be the answer, since spammers are now using images
>
> These rules are presently stopping most image spam here:
>
>
> rawbody I
On 27-okt-2006, at 12:03, George Borisov wrote:
Peter Teunissen wrote:
If you're looking for a way to get rid of picture spam, try the SARE
rules (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) for spamassassin. I use these
rulesets and get very high scores on the picture spam I get.
Simply add
these rules
On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by the
> > amount of traffic an individual user uses. If
On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by the
> > amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a spammer uses a zombie
> > operation and starts sending spam
On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by the
amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a spammer uses a zombie
operation and starts sending spam from these zombie machines, it increases
the net amount of
On Friday 27 October 2006 07:51, Chris Walters wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think the only answer to spam is a class action lawsuit
> - or an International one against the people who are getting rich off
> these messages. I'll bet that most legitimate Internet Service/Access
> Providers would join a
Chris Walters writes:
> As for stopping spam, as we have recently seen, word lists are not going
> to be the answer, since spammers are now using images
These rules are presently stopping most image spam here:
rawbody INLINE_IMAGE/src\s*=\s*["']cid:/i
describe INLINE_IMAGE Inline Images
sc
On 2006-10-26 12:56:07 +0100, David Hart wrote:
> I'll be the first to admit that mutt is not ideal for reading pop
> accounts but I've found it very useful for things like testing when
> setting up pop/imap servers.
AFAIK, POP is not a protocol to read mail (in the sense, as a real
mailbox, with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-10-26 19:34:49 -0400, Mark Grieveson wrote:
>> DENY=^Subject:.*v..agra
>
> You may reject legitimate mail, in particular because . can replace
> anything including a space (in French, "agra" is contained in
> "agrand
On 2006-10-25 20:05:48 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > The goal is to mix mail. And yes, Mutt can't do that when dealing
> > with multiple accounts (they all appear in a separate mailbox).
>
> Not true, mutt excels at mixing mail to the point where it is
> utterly incapab
On 2006-10-26 19:34:49 -0400, Mark Grieveson wrote:
> DENY=^Subject:.*v..agra
You may reject legitimate mail, in particular because . can replace
anything including a space (in French, "agra" is contained in
"agrandir", which is a very common word -- I don't know about
English words that contain "
Peter Teunissen wrote:
>
> If you're looking for a way to get rid of picture spam, try the SARE
> rules (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) for spamassassin. I use these
> rulesets and get very high scores on the picture spam I get. Simply add
> these rules to your setup using sa-update & the openprote
Tim Post wrote:
>
> Since on the topic, if someone is winning the battle to keep them out of
> their inbox, sharing of spam-a rules would be much appreciated :) I'm
> getting 15 - 20 of them a day.
For mailfilter, in the .mailfilterrc file, I find this rule catches
quite a few:
DEN
On 26-okt-2006, at 18:31, Tim Post wrote:
Yes, I get several a day myself. The actual "text" of the message is
often actually an image, while the body of the message is randomly
selected sentences or words from a collection which would make a
Bayesian filter delete most of my e-mail.
Same t
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:47 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
>
> A: Because it reverses the normal order of conversation.
> Q: Why is top-posting considered undesirable by many?
>
Apologies. My desktop machines are being consumed with things apparently
more important than me using th
On 10/26/2006, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
>> Speaking of which, contacting the FTC regarding penalizing spamvertised
>> stocks is futile .. does anyone know of any law requiring the FTC to
>> act? Seems to me the stock should get yanked and the company
>> investigated and find for such
Tim Post wrote:
>
> Since on the topic, if someone is winning the battle to keep them out of
> their inbox, sharing of spam-a rules would be much appreciated :) I'm
> getting 15 - 20 of them a day.
For the ones with the ads as an image (which, I assume, is what
you mean) you can use the FuzzyOCR
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:43:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> > Don't expect Outlook, Thunderbird, Mutt, Pine, or even Evolution to do
> > anything more than simple blob sorts or spam checking.
>
> You mean like Thunderbird having a built-in Bayesian scanner which cat
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:05:48PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > The goal is to mix mail. And yes, Mutt can't do that when dealing
> > with multiple accounts (they all appear in a separate mailbox).
>
> Not true, mutt excels at mixing mail to the point where it is utte
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:41:48AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Hart wrote:
> > Been there, done that, look at the third link above to see why it does.
> > ;-)
>
> Doesn't keep mail separate. Please, read the archives before going
> further. I'm sick and tired of mutt zealots telling me
T.J. Duchene wrote:
> Granted, several of the new MUAs aka "mail clients" or more precisely
> "mail user agents" have some very primitive filtering capabilities, but
> ladies and gentlemen, the most practical mail filtering or sorting is
> almost always done server side before your MUA even gets th
Tim Post wrote:
A: Because it reverses the normal order of conversation.
Q: Why is top-posting considered undesirable by many?
What I can't seem to stop is the huge influx of these "penny stock"
spams. They're getting smarter than bayes filtering and keyword
'snatches' have become almost imposs
What I can't seem to stop is the huge influx of these "penny stock"
spams. They're getting smarter than bayes filtering and keyword
'snatches' have become almost impossible.
Since on the topic, if someone is winning the battle to keep them out of
their inbox, sharing of spam-a rules would be much
Steve Lamb wrote:
.
>
> Not true, mutt excels at mixing mail to the point where it is utterly
> incapable of doing so without forcing the user to go to extraordinary lengths
> to keep their mail untangled. Hence my pointing out that modern mail clients
> can keep mail separate and cited mutt
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> The goal is to mix mail. And yes, Mutt can't do that when dealing
> with multiple accounts (they all appear in a separate mailbox).
Not true, mutt excels at mixing mail to the point where it is utterly
incapable of doing so without forcing the user to go to extraordina
On 2006-10-24 20:29:10 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Er... why? That's why modern mail clients (read, not mutt)
> handle multiple accounts from multiple servers. Back when I was
> running OS/2 and PMMail/2 (late 90s) I had 4 accounts I checked
> regularly with POP and I never mixed them and loathe
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:21:59PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > fetchmail -> exim -> procmail -> IMAP storage -> dovecot -> MUA (tbird
> > or mutt depending...)
>
> > procmail clearly handles IMAP just fine, all you have to do is put a /
> > at the end of the locatio
David Hart wrote:
> Been there, done that, look at the third link above to see why it does.
> ;-)
Doesn't keep mail separate. Please, read the archives before going
further. I'm sick and tired of mutt zealots telling me it does what it
doesn't do and thinking a few links equates to a reasone
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:58:11PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> David Hart wrote:
> > http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#pop
> > http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#imap
> > http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#account-hook
>
> Been there, discussed that, look at "mixing
David Hart wrote:
> http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#pop
> http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#imap
> http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#account-hook
Been there, discussed that, look at "mixing of mail" to see why it
doesn't. kkthxbuhbyenow!
--
Steve C.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:29:10PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Yes, in a perfect world. But one may have several mail accounts.
> > So, one may want to retrieve mail from one account by POP or IMAP
> > and store it to an IMAP mailbox (from which all the mail from
> > ever
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Yes, in a perfect world. But one may have several mail accounts.
> So, one may want to retrieve mail from one account by POP or IMAP
> and store it to an IMAP mailbox (from which all the mail from
> every account is read with a MUA).
Er... why? That's why modern mail
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> fetchmail -> exim -> procmail -> IMAP storage -> dovecot -> MUA (tbird
> or mutt depending...)
> procmail clearly handles IMAP just fine, all you have to do is put a /
> at the end of the location to store the mail and it handles it as IMAP.
You mean Maildir? I
On 2006-10-24 14:02:11 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >Not just MUAs do IMAP. MDAs can do it too. And procmail is also a
> >MDA (according to its documentation). However procmail is no longer
> >developed and is too old to support IMAP. But couldn't mailagent
> >support IMA
On 2006-10-24 10:30:28 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Not just MUAs do IMAP. MDAs can do it too. And procmail is also a
> > MDA (according to its documentation). However procmail is no longer
> > developed and is too old to support IMAP. But couldn't mailagent
> > support IMA
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
However procmail is no longer
developed and is too old to support IMAP.
I'm confused by this as I'm reading the list right now using t-bird from
my store connected to IMAP folders on my server at home and its setup
like this:
fetchma
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> However procmail is no longer
> developed and is too old to support IMAP.
I'm confused by this as I'm reading the list right now using t-bird from
my store connected to IMAP folders on my server at home and its setup
like this:
fetchmail -> exim -> procmail -> IMAP storag
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Not just MUAs do IMAP. MDAs can do it too. And procmail is also a
MDA (according to its documentation). However procmail is no longer
developed and is too old to support IMAP. But couldn't mailagent
support IMAP via a Perl module?
The upstream version of procmail isn't m
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Not just MUAs do IMAP. MDAs can do it too. And procmail is also a
> MDA (according to its documentation). However procmail is no longer
> developed and is too old to support IMAP. But couldn't mailagent
> support IMAP via a Perl module?
Er... how and why? I'm really c
On 2006-10-24 01:32:11 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:18:53 +, Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I was looking at documentation for mailagent (I use Procmail atm)
> > but I could not find any mention of IMAP. Does mailagent do IMAP?
>
> mailagent, like
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:18:53 +, Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 21 October 2006 15:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:58:28 +0200, Vincent Lefevre
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> > On 2006-10-17 03:19:23 +, s. keeling wrote:
>> >> You're the first pe
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:22:42 +, Pollywog
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 00:18, Pollywog wrote:
>>
>> I was looking at documentation for mailagent (I use Procmail atm)
>> but I could not find any mention of IMAP. Does mailagent do IMAP?
> What I meant was: can mailag
On Sunday 22 October 2006 00:18, Pollywog wrote:
>
> I was looking at documentation for mailagent (I use Procmail atm) but I
> could not find any mention of IMAP. Does mailagent do IMAP?
What I meant was: can mailagent deliver mail to IMAP mailboxes?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Saturday 21 October 2006 15:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:58:28 +0200, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On 2006-10-17 03:19:23 +, s. keeling wrote:
> >> You're the first person I've seen to describe procmail as
> >> "underpowered." I would not list that
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:58:28 +0200, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2006-10-17 03:19:23 +, s. keeling wrote:
>> You're the first person I've seen to describe procmail as
>> "underpowered." I would not list that as one of its attributes.
>> Perhaps it's difficult to figure out
On 2006-10-17 03:19:23 +, s. keeling wrote:
> You're the first person I've seen to describe procmail as
> "underpowered." I would not list that as one of its attributes.
> Perhaps it's difficult to figure out how to get it to do $THAT, but
> (in my experience) it can do $THAT.
I couldn't find
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:19:23 GMT, s keeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> However, I'm past the curve. *I* have no trouble getting procmail
> to do what I want it to do. Whether the price is worth the effort
> for others is another question. If I was starting over, I'd
> probably go with the alt
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:41:36 GMT, s keeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I agree procmail can do it (I do it with procmail). I question the
> > "Very easy" bit. procmail is not easy to control. If you've the
> > time to learn its quirks, it's great.
Ron Johnson([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/15/06 00:41, s. keeling wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On 2006-10-13 14:35:14 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Easier might be mailfilter. I've n
On 2006-10-15 05:41:36 +, s. keeling wrote:
> I agree procmail can do it (I do it with procmail). I question the
> "Very easy" bit. procmail is not easy to control.
Well, I meant that amongst all the rules one can write, mailer-daemon
filtering is one of the easiest rules.
I've cited procma
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:41:36 GMT, s keeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I agree procmail can do it (I do it with procmail). I question the
> "Very easy" bit. procmail is not easy to control. If you've the
> time to learn its quirks, it's great. However, it's somewhat like a
> C programmer try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 00:41, s. keeling wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 2006-10-13 14:35:14 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
>
> Easier might be mailfilter. I've never used it, but it's purported to
> be the English language equivalent to
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2006-10-13 14:35:14 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > I've been having a serious problem with someone spoofing my e-mail
> > address. Various places in several countries (Russia, Korea, Belize,
> > Greece) are spoofing my e-mail address. I get tens of bounces
On 2006-10-13 14:35:14 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I've been having a serious problem with someone spoofing my e-mail
> address. Various places in several countries (Russia, Korea, Belize,
> Greece) are spoofing my e-mail address. I get tens of bounces from
> e-mails which are undeliverable.
You
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:35:14PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Martin Möller wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm experiencing a significant increase of spam. The messages mostly
> >contain a few words and a number as subject and a senseless html body
> >(randomly arranged words) as well as a GIF attachme
Martin Möller wrote:
Hi all,
I'm experiencing a significant increase of spam. The messages mostly
contain a few words and a number as subject and a senseless html body
(randomly arranged words) as well as a GIF attachment.
I've been having a serious problem with someone spoofing my e-mail
addr
On 2006-10-09 09:58:17 +0200, Martin Möller wrote:
> I'm experiencing a significant increase of spam. The messages mostly
> contain a few words and a number as subject and a senseless html body
> (randomly arranged words) as well as a GIF attachment.
>
> Spamassassin fails to recognise the spam (~
> Hi all,
>
> I'm experiencing a significant increase of spam. The messages mostly
> contain a few words and a number as subject and a senseless html body
> (randomly arranged words) as well as a GIF attachment.
>
> Spamassassin fails to recognise the spam (~4.8 points of needed 5.0). I
> guess I'l
81 matches
Mail list logo
