Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules tofrustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-30 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:35:51PM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote: > If I were trying to do it, I would use the KNOWN_SPAMMERS list in > mm_cfg.py. For example just listing a few of yours > > KNOWN_SPAMMERS = [ > ('from', '^(.*[\s<])?do-not-reply@'), > ('from', '^(.*[\s<])[EMAIL PROTECTED]([\s>].*)?'),

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-30 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:36:19PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > You have to be careful, though. For several years on one of my lists > I had a subscriber whose address was something like (I don't recall > exactly) "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", which was a > perfectly valid address and at which he/sh

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-30 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:25:15PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote: > I wasn't referring to sender verification callbacks (which we do not use). > I was referring to recipient verification callforwards, where the edge MTA > doesn't know valid recipients but some internal (or even customer) MTA does. >

[Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-30 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Rich Kulawiec writes: > Any incoming mail message whose putative sender matches: > > do-not-reply@ > > and which is directed to any of the Mailman standard aliases can > be rejected (not bounced [1]) with SMTP status 550 (extended status > 5.7.1) since either: > > (a) it's a f