Hi,
On Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 14:09:32 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:36:30 +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
> >>For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
> >>zen.spamhaus.org co
John K Masters([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> On 18:12 Sun 09 Sep , Mumia W.. wrote:
> > On 09/09/2007 03:08 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-func
On 19-sep-2007, at 21:27, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:36:30 +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
zen.spamhaus.org combined blocklist wich is very effective and has
almost
no false positives. I don't know h
On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 14:09:32 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
That's true, although the sending server will generate a bounce back
to the sender. So the mail doesn't disappear down a black hole, at
least.
Great! with million senders
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:56 PM, John K Masters wrote:
Without wishing to start a conspiracy theory but has anyone collected
stats on the mail-agents used to send spam. Up till a couple of months
ago most were Outlook but since then I have seen a dramatic
increase in
the use of The Bat! to send sp
On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:36:30 +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
zen.spamhaus.org combined blocklist wich is very effective and has
almost
no false positives. I don't kn
On 18:12 Sun 09 Sep , Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 09/09/2007 03:08 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>> [...]
>> A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-function or
>> Kmails redirect function for that, so the headers don't get
Hi,
On Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:36:30 +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
> For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
> zen.spamhaus.org combined blocklist wich is very effective and has almost
> no false positives. I don't know how they do it, but it catches 90% of my
> spam on it
On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:58 PM, s. keeling wrote:
For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
zen.spamhaus.org combined blocklist wich is very effective and
has almost
Much simpler to just bogofilter. :-)
I like to do both, on my home system. IPs in the spamhaus.org l
Peter Teunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, September 18, 2007 04:39, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> >
> > Such a system is implemented by spamcop (www.spamcop.net). Their block
> > list,
>
> For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
> zen.spamhaus.org combined bloc
On Tue, September 18, 2007 04:39, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Adam Hardy wrote:
>
>> A few days back I asked whether anyone had heard of a spam IP blacklist
>> filter maintained by a community of spam 'reporters' who submit spam
>> emails to the server. Each reporter has their own 'effectivenes
Adam Hardy wrote:
> A few days back I asked whether anyone had heard of a spam IP blacklist
> filter maintained by a community of spam 'reporters' who submit spam
> emails to the server. Each reporter has their own 'effectiveness rating'
> and once enough 'effective people' report the spam, the em
Adam wrote:
> Admittedly it wouldn't catch image spam advertising hot stocks, but it would
> certainly take out the others and seems to me to be a better bet than dynamic
> filters.
I remember that there was a ton of that not too long ago. There was
supposed to be
fiters that would try and get ri
Michelle Konzack on 17/09/07 09:33, wrote:
Am 2007-09-13 12:15:10, schrieb Andrew Sackville-West:
now what was your point?
The Listmasters should deactivate the SPAM-Filtering...
Hmmm, the we get all P-Enlargements for 4 km -- Oops!
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Syste
Am 2007-09-13 12:15:10, schrieb Andrew Sackville-West:
> now what was your point?
The Listmasters should deactivate the SPAM-Filtering...
Hmmm, the we get all P-Enlargements for 4 km -- Oops!
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Networ
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:57:15PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
>
> Would you believe...
>
> ...It's finally on DVD, but from only one source (I think Time-Life, but
> for some reason, I think it's HBO that owns the rights now). You can't
> buy it retail or through discount sources, though. (Sor
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 05:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-09-09 12:25:59, schrieb Andrew Sackville-West:
> > I know this doesn't really help you, but I've seen a *massive*
> > increase in spam hitting my one server in the last couple of
> > days. Previously I was seeing something
Am 2007-09-09 12:25:59, schrieb Andrew Sackville-West:
> I know this doesn't really help you, but I've seen a *massive*
> increase in spam hitting my one server in the last couple of
> days. Previously I was seeing something like 50 spam a day hitting me
> (this is after clamav kicks out the virus
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 22:08:17 +0200
Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-function or
> Kmails redirect function for that, so the headers don't get modified, so
> we
Hi,
> A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-function or
> Kmails redirect function for that, so the headers don't get modified, so
> we can directly us that emails to train our filters to do better.
Need to correct my
Hi,
On Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 18:12:28 -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 09/09/2007 03:08 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> >[...]
> >A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-function or
> >Kmails redirect function for that, so th
On Sunday 09 September 2007 15:08, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
>
> On Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 21:15:32 +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with s-x spam
> > yet again. I can't send it to Spamcop because it will identify the list
> > as the s
Martin Zobel-Helas on 09/09/07 21:08, wrote:
[1] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200709091425
Interesting collection of recipes, unfortunately no Knodel mit
Champignonrahmsosse :(
[2]
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-listmaster/trunk/spamassassin_config/?rev=0&sc=0
I would be very inte
On 09/09/2007 03:08 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
[...]
A thing every user can do is to bounce spam delivered to the lists to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Best you use mutt's bounce-function or
Kmails redirect function for that, so the headers don't get modified, so
we can directly us that emails to train o
On Sunday 09 September 2007, Nigel Henry wrote:
> On Sunday 09 September 2007 22:41, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 September 2007, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > > On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:25, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> >
On Sunday 09 September 2007 22:41, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 09 September 2007, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:25, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > > > This has got more than a joke now. We are being bomb
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 10:08:17PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
...
>
> Actually you can be lucky that you are not subscribed to
> lists.debian.org before the spam-filter. I needed to do that today, to
> find some nasty errors in our new setup, which really sucked. Watching
> your INBOX grow
On Sunday 09 September 2007, Nigel Henry wrote:
> On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:25, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > > This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with
> > > s-x spam yet again.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Sor
On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:25, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with s-x spam
> > yet again.
>
> ...
>
> > Sorry if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm feeling sarcastic at
Hi Nigel,
On Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 21:15:32 +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with s-x spam yet
> again. I can't send it to Spamcop because it will identify the list as the
> sender.
True, and you will most probably also get kicked from the lis
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 12:25:59PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with s-x spam yet
> > again.
> ...
>
> > Sorry if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm feeling sarca
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:15:32PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> This has got more than a joke now. We are being bombarded with s-x spam yet
> again.
...
> Sorry if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm feeling sarcastic at the
> moment,
> as I don't want this cr-p on my machine.
I know this do
32 matches
Mail list logo
