You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net> on 2011/10/12 21:49:12 UTC
Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
spam.
Damn fools.
{+_+}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 07:24, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 12:32 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>>> spam.
>>>
>>> Damn fools.
>>> {+_+}
>> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
>> the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
>> but however, nothing in the world is perfect
>> also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
>> list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
>> (should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
>
> Except the premise is not true. We do not list earthlink.net in our blacklist.
> Eathlinks servers are yellow listed indicating that they are a mixed source of
> email and the IP address means nothing.
Since you are (perhaps justifiably being repetitious) I will be, too.
3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
[207.69.195.26 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
[207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
This is the latter one.
Received: from mx-taint.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.183])
by mdl-compact.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP
id 1rdHIL1Ry3Nl37e0; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
A reverse DNS on the address confirms it. This was killing LKML, Scientific
Linux users list, and other almost 100% good sources.
And so forth.
Care to try again?
{^_^}
Somehow it got listed. It MAY be unlisted now. I don't see anything hitting
the residual score 0.001 I left dangling around as a check.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 12:32 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
> the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
> but however, nothing in the world is perfect
> also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
> list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
> (should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
Except the premise is not true. We do not list earthlink.net in our
blacklist. Eathlinks servers are yellow listed indicating that they are
a mixed source of email and the IP address means nothing.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:32 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
Indeed, they have been listed on no less than 27 times over my career
here. AOL and twtelecom only got listed 17 times :-)
in fact they now are relisted on one dnsbl, but it wont affect most
people, geographical saturation an all, and not used in SA.
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 01:17, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 13.10.2011 10:07, schrieb jdow:
>> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
>>>> their
>>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>>> marked as
>>>> spam.
>>>>
>>>> Damn fools.
>>>> {+_+}
>>>
>>> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
>>> the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
>>> but however, nothing in the world is perfect
>>> also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
>>> list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
>>> (should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
>>
>> Then why have I never received a spam that originated on Earthlink despite
>> having other email addresses that I use less often but nevertheless get
>> spam? I've seen a lot that claimed Earthlink that never got near the
>> Earthlink servers. But I've never seen spam from Earthlink or relayed
>> through Earthlink.<shrug> I'm VERY frustrated over this because when
>> I tried zeroing the hostkarma BL score and, yes, restarting SpamAssassin,
>> the score remained at 3. That was with a .cf file 99_local.cf I created
>> to trump all other rules. It seems it didn't. That left me about ready
>> to eviscerate somebody if I could get hands on the responsible people.
>>
>> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
>> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
>> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
>> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
>> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>>
>> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
>> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
>> came through Russia.
>>
>> {+_+}
>
> i understand your frust, recently the servers from the biggest german
> provider got in rbls , this has lead to a lot of work here
> i personally would not use hostkarma or recommend it, and anyway
> i use other stuff for antispam, but keep cool shit happens,
> mail providing is daily work, youre right whitelisting should work
> in spamassassin , if it doesnt show logs etc for support why it may
> failed, cause i guess others get in trouble too, so the problem should
> be solved public in a friendly way
>
What sent me over the top was the rule still getting a score of 3 when
I had superceded it with a score (one later in processing) of 0.001 and
had restarted spamassassin (well, spamd). That lit my candle.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Robert Schetterer <ro...@schetterer.org>.
Am 13.10.2011 10:07, schrieb jdow:
> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
>>> their
>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>> marked as
>>> spam.
>>>
>>> Damn fools.
>>> {+_+}
>>
>> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
>> the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
>> but however, nothing in the world is perfect
>> also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
>> list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
>> (should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
>
> Then why have I never received a spam that originated on Earthlink despite
> having other email addresses that I use less often but nevertheless get
> spam? I've seen a lot that claimed Earthlink that never got near the
> Earthlink servers. But I've never seen spam from Earthlink or relayed
> through Earthlink. <shrug> I'm VERY frustrated over this because when
> I tried zeroing the hostkarma BL score and, yes, restarting SpamAssassin,
> the score remained at 3. That was with a .cf file 99_local.cf I created
> to trump all other rules. It seems it didn't. That left me about ready
> to eviscerate somebody if I could get hands on the responsible people.
>
> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>
> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
> came through Russia.
>
> {+_+}
i understand your frust, recently the servers from the biggest german
provider got in rbls , this has lead to a lot of work here
i personally would not use hostkarma or recommend it, and anyway
i use other stuff for antispam, but keep cool shit happens,
mail providing is daily work, youre right whitelisting should work
in spamassassin , if it doesnt show logs etc for support why it may
failed, cause i guess others get in trouble too, so the problem should
be solved public in a friendly way
--
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 2:04 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 07:26, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2011 1:16 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote:
>>>> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>>>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>>>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers
>>>>>> into their
>>>>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>>>>> marked as
>>>>>> spam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damn fools.
>>>>>> {+_+}
>>>> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
>>>> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
>>>> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
>>>> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
>>>> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to
>>>> admiring
>>>> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
>>>> came through Russia.
>>>>
>>>> {+_+}
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see a case for Ritalin developing from this thread........
>>>
>>> Please /dev/null the nasties.......
>>> This is a user list, not a platform to vent frustrations.
>>>
>>> thx
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I mean yeah really? Do you think I would deliberately blacklist
>> earthlink?
>>
>
> Accidents happen. That's why I initially reported it, perhaps a little
> abrasively leading to the even more abrasive replies.
>
> {^_^}
>
>
I accept your apology. :)
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 07:26, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 1:16 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>> On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote:
>>> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>>>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>>>>> spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn fools.
>>>>> {+_+}
>>> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
>>> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
>>> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
>>> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
>>> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>>>
>>> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
>>> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
>>> came through Russia.
>>>
>>> {+_+}
>>>
>>
>> I see a case for Ritalin developing from this thread........
>>
>> Please /dev/null the nasties.......
>> This is a user list, not a platform to vent frustrations.
>>
>> thx
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>
> I mean yeah really? Do you think I would deliberately blacklist earthlink?
>
Accidents happen. That's why I initially reported it, perhaps a little
abrasively leading to the even more abrasive replies.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 1:16 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote:
>> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers
>>>> into their
>>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>>> marked as
>>>> spam.
>>>>
>>>> Damn fools.
>>>> {+_+}
>> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
>> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
>> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
>> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
>> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>>
>> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
>> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
>> came through Russia.
>>
>> {+_+}
>>
>
> I see a case for Ritalin developing from this thread........
>
> Please /dev/null the nasties.......
> This is a user list, not a platform to vent frustrations.
>
> thx
>
> Tom
>
>
I mean yeah really? Do you think I would deliberately blacklist earthlink?
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Tom Kinghorn <th...@gmail.com>.
On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
>>> their
>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>> marked as
>>> spam.
>>>
>>> Damn fools.
>>> {+_+}
> It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
> you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
> sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
> heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
> only seen in politicians and lawyers.
>
> I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
> the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
> came through Russia.
>
> {+_+}
>
I see a case for Ritalin developing from this thread........
Please /dev/null the nasties.......
This is a user list, not a platform to vent frustrations.
thx
Tom
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
>
> earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
> the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
> but however, nothing in the world is perfect
> also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
> list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
> (should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
Then why have I never received a spam that originated on Earthlink despite
having other email addresses that I use less often but nevertheless get
spam? I've seen a lot that claimed Earthlink that never got near the
Earthlink servers. But I've never seen spam from Earthlink or relayed
through Earthlink. <shrug> I'm VERY frustrated over this because when
I tried zeroing the hostkarma BL score and, yes, restarting SpamAssassin,
the score remained at 3. That was with a .cf file 99_local.cf I created
to trump all other rules. It seems it didn't. That left me about ready
to eviscerate somebody if I could get hands on the responsible people.
It is VERY frustrating when faced with tools that do NOT work right,
you don't have the time for the nonsense, and assholes like the
sanctimonious cretin I replied to rather heatedly and apparently not
heatedly enough since his brain is impervious to thought to a degree
only seen in politicians and lawyers.
I think I managed to tame the freaking rule. Now to go back to admiring
the phishes supposedly from the Earthlink web mail administrator that
came through Russia.
{+_+}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Robert Schetterer <ro...@schetterer.org>.
Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow:
> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
> spam.
>
> Damn fools.
> {+_+}
earthlink.net net is a spam source since years ( not one of the worst )
the only thing what makes suprise that they got in rbls at present
but however, nothing in the world is perfect
also in case of rbl using, so its up to postmaster to get free from the
list, nothing what you should flame about, anyway whitelisting is
(should be ) possible ever, at your site and on other sites
--
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 08:18, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
>>
>>
>
> If by some mistake we actually did blacklist an earthlink.net server then I
> would want to know about it and fix it. The HOSTKARMA list would never do that
> deliberately.
Somehow it got in there. And then spamd didn't pick up the rule change I
put in. By then I got VERY frazzled because I had other work I had to do
with a very high priority. Alas, my temperament is "overly Irish."
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote:
> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
> their
> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
> marked as
> spam.
>
> Damn fools.
> {+_+}
>
>
If by some mistake we actually did blacklist an earthlink.net server
then I would want to know about it and fix it. The HOSTKARMA list would
never do that deliberately.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 14:15, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>> On 10/13, jdow wrote:
>>> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
>>> [207.69.195.183 listed in
>>> hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
>>
>> None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect
>> beings. And you get it all for free. Mistakes happen, and the
>> appropriate response is to report the flaw to the maintainer.
>> And possibly calmly mention the problem to others who could be affected,
>> via this list. Not losing your dignity all over a mailing list. Relax.
>> It's just a blacklist, and not even one that has been deemed high
>> enough quality to be in spamassassin's default rule set. You did this
>> to yourself.
>
> So I did. I had put it in as a test a long time ago. I'd had some issues
> in the past and then this one. So for now it's gone. Sorry Marc. the
> downside of using it got too big.
>
> {^_^}
>
>
The reason I didn't notice it was that I do tests on host names before I
do IP tests and the host name tests got it right. So I was passing email
normally from those IPs even though I had them blacklisted. But that
didn't do you any good.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 14:15, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/13, jdow wrote:
>> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
>> [207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
>
> None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect
> beings. And you get it all for free. Mistakes happen, and the
> appropriate response is to report the flaw to the maintainer.
> And possibly calmly mention the problem to others who could be affected,
> via this list. Not losing your dignity all over a mailing list. Relax.
> It's just a blacklist, and not even one that has been deemed high
> enough quality to be in spamassassin's default rule set. You did this
> to yourself.
So I did. I had put it in as a test a long time ago. I'd had some issues
in the past and then this one. So for now it's gone. Sorry Marc. the
downside of using it got too big.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 2:15 PM, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/13, jdow wrote:
>> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
>> [207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
> None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect
> beings. And you get it all for free. Mistakes happen, and the
> appropriate response is to report the flaw to the maintainer.
> And possibly calmly mention the problem to others who could be affected,
> via this list. Not losing your dignity all over a mailing list. Relax.
> It's just a blacklist, and not even one that has been deemed high
> enough quality to be in spamassassin's default rule set. You did this
> to yourself.
>
That's true. Although some people believe that I'm God - I actually do
make mistakes.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by da...@chaosreigns.com.
On 10/13, jdow wrote:
> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
> [207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect
beings. And you get it all for free. Mistakes happen, and the
appropriate response is to report the flaw to the maintainer.
And possibly calmly mention the problem to others who could be affected,
via this list. Not losing your dignity all over a mailing list. Relax.
It's just a blacklist, and not even one that has been deemed high
enough quality to be in spamassassin's default rule set. You did this
to yourself.
--
"Judge if you want. We are all going to die. I intend to deserve it."
- http://www.ASofterWorld.com/index.php?id=421
http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 9:43 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 12:05 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> OK - I didn't deliberately blacklist them. I found a bug in my yellow
>> listing code
> No system or person or group of people is perfect and we ALL make
> mistakes... even big mistakes from time to time... and even large and
> famous corporations make big mistakes (i.e. RIM over the past few
> days!!!)... and even the best anti-spam blacklists make mistakes or have
> system errors on occasion!
>
>> that I have now fixed.
> ...of course, the more successful ones, like Marc Perkel's operation,
> learn from their mistakes...
>
> (and yes, Marc is right... the expectations for an anti-spam blacklist's
> consistency and quality can be extremely high--But I'm not
> complaining... just making an observation!)
Sometimes it's too high. It's just like Blackberry. They have high
expectations and they fail too. Sh*t happens.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Rob McEwen <ro...@invaluement.com>.
On 10/14/2011 12:05 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> OK - I didn't deliberately blacklist them. I found a bug in my yellow
> listing code
No system or person or group of people is perfect and we ALL make
mistakes... even big mistakes from time to time... and even large and
famous corporations make big mistakes (i.e. RIM over the past few
days!!!)... and even the best anti-spam blacklists make mistakes or have
system errors on occasion!
> that I have now fixed.
...of course, the more successful ones, like Marc Perkel's operation,
learn from their mistakes...
(and yes, Marc is right... the expectations for an anti-spam blacklist's
consistency and quality can be extremely high--But I'm not
complaining... just making an observation!)
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/13/2011 2:00 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 07:21, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
>>> their
>>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
>>> marked as
>>> spam.
>>>
>>> Damn fools.
>>> {+_+}
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me!
>>
>> Earthlink servers are NOT blacklisted.
>>
>
> As I replied privately:
> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
> [207.69.195.26 listed in
> hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
> 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
> [207.69.195.183 listed in
> hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
>
> This is the latter one.
> Received: from mx-taint.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.183])
> by mdl-compact.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server)
> with SMTP id 1rdHIL1Ry3Nl37e0; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
> A reverse DNS on the address confirms it. This was killing LKML,
> Scientific
> Linux users list, and other almost 100% good sources.
>
> And so forth.
>
> Care to try again?
> {^_^}
>
>
OK - I didn't deliberately blacklist them. I found a bug in my yellow
listing code that I have now fixed.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 07:21, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
>>
>>
>
> Excuse me!
>
> Earthlink servers are NOT blacklisted.
>
As I replied privately:
3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
[207.69.195.26 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
[207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
This is the latter one.
Received: from mx-taint.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.183])
by mdl-compact.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP
id 1rdHIL1Ry3Nl37e0; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
A reverse DNS on the address confirms it. This was killing LKML, Scientific
Linux users list, and other almost 100% good sources.
And so forth.
Care to try again?
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Marc Perkel <su...@junkemailfilter.com>.
On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote:
> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
> their
> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
> marked as
> spam.
>
> Damn fools.
> {+_+}
>
>
Excuse me!
Earthlink servers are NOT blacklisted.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
support@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
I dunno Joanne, by your reply, seems like the listing is valid to me.
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 21:44 -0700, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/12 16:35, Noel Butler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:49 -0700, jdow wrote:
> >> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
> >> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
> >> spam.
> >>
> >> Damn fools.
> >> {+_+}
>
> > What makes them idiots for doing that?
> > There just very well might be justification, or do you believe large SP's be
> > immune from blacklists?
>
> When they have measures to prevent volumes of spam, yes they should be
> exempt. Fuck you sir and the god damn horse you rode in on.
>
> {`,'}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/12 16:35, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:49 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
> What makes them idiots for doing that?
> There just very well might be justification, or do you believe large SP's be
> immune from blacklists?
When they have measures to prevent volumes of spam, yes they should be
exempt. Fuck you sir and the god damn horse you rode in on.
{`,'}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:49 -0700, jdow wrote:
> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
> spam.
>
> Damn fools.
> {+_+}
What makes them idiots for doing that?
There just very well might be justification, or do you believe large
SP's be immune from blacklists?
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 18:23 -0700, jdow wrote:
> You mean like
> ===8<---
> :0c:
> $HOME/mail/rawmbox
> ===8<--- {^_-}
>
I'm not really up to speed on procmail, but I guess so.
> What that trick needs is a way to pull a log rotate sort of function on the
> rawmbox.
>
I cheated there: rather than trying to massage some combo of subject and
sender into a unique filename (each quarantined message is a separate
file), I merely use the date received formatted as ccyy-mm-dd_h:mm:dd as
the file name and (paranoid thinking) append the next lower case letter
in the unlikely event of a spam having already been quarantined in that
second. Besides, it makes the 7 day deletion cron job somewhat trivial
and the PHP displayed list easy to sort with most recent spam at the
head of the list, since yesterday's spam is about all I'm likely to want
to examine.
> I do leave all the processed mail on our mail server and manually
> rotate it every month when I do the saved email backup on my main machine.
>
My old spam deletion is run as a daily cron job.
> So in theory I can rebuild with no more than a month of deletions to redo.
>
There we differ: my quarantine is strictly 7 days and then its gone. My
mail archive is also updated by a daily cron job. The archive is a
PostgreSQL database, so necessarily other backup methods are used
(pgdump or stopping PostgreSQL and taking a compressed tar copy are the
obvious ones and in fact I use both (compressed tar as part of the daily
backup to a permanently online USB drive and pgdump for a weekly offline
backup).
> It's done well enough considering I've been handling mail on the Windows
> machines because that's where I make money. (Yes, I am quite mercenary.)
>
And why not? If I was a better business person than I am, I'd be making
a much more determined effort to sell my mail archive system.
Martin
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 16:31, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:56 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable
>>>> package for SL6.1.
>>>>
>>> Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd
>>> expect other distros to include it too.
>>
>> I am canny enough for that. I ran "yum list getmail" and since rpmforge
>> is enabled that one popped up. It MAY be the latest. SL6.1 is basically
>> RHEL 6.1.
>>
> OK. I'm running getmail 4.20.0, which is latest for Fedora 13 - I know,
> my mail server need a distro upodate. Maybe next week if the weather is
> bad.
>
>> Yeah, I notice you cheat about as badly as I do.
>>
> :-)
>
> ...and anyway, if you're sitting behind fetchmail or getmail you MUST
> accept all mail that gets that far, so about all you can go with spam is
> bin or quarantine it. As it happens, I recently wrote PHP tool that
> lists all quarantined mail and lets me inspect it. I also have a cron
> job that bins quarantined mail thats over 'n' days old and spamkiller's
> rejections get logged and included in the daily logwatch report.
rewrite_header Subject *****SPAM***** _SCORE(00)_ **
Then I sort into spam on the *****SPAM*****. If I sort by subject it sorts
by score. That at least makes it somewhat easier to sort the wheat from
the chaff. Usually there is very little wheat mixed into the chaff. And
most of it scores over 10 and only VERY seldom does any of the wheat that
got stuck in there gets over 10. It makes the visual scan easy.
>> It works and I can see how.
>> I'd still go through procmail to the mail spool. We pick it up using DoveCot
>> for POP3(S) and IMAP(S). POP3 is delivery. IMAP is "feed it back to be learned
>> as spam."
>>
> Each to their own. I pass everything through Postfix as my MTA because
> it has an 'always_bcc' directive that copies all incoming and outgoing
> messages to my mail archive. I also wrote an SA plugin that whitelists
> all messages sent by somebody that the mail archive knows I've sent mail
> to.
You mean like
===8<---
:0c:
$HOME/mail/rawmbox
===8<--- {^_-}
What that trick needs is a way to pull a log rotate sort of function on the
rawmbox. I do leave all the processed mail on our mail server and manually
rotate it every month when I do the saved email backup on my main machine.
So in theory I can rebuild with no more than a month of deletions to redo.
It's done well enough considering I've been handling mail on the Windows
machines because that's where I make money. (Yes, I am quite mercenary.)
(Been at this since the early 2.x days for SpamAssassin. I forget if it was
earlier than 2.20 or not. It works so well it gets rather traumatic when it
misfires dramatically. Then when somebody gets twitish about zero tolerance
for an mail provider as large as Earthlink I flay people alive for recreation.)
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:56 -0700, jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable
> >> package for SL6.1.
> >>
> > Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd
> > expect other distros to include it too.
>
> I am canny enough for that. I ran "yum list getmail" and since rpmforge
> is enabled that one popped up. It MAY be the latest. SL6.1 is basically
> RHEL 6.1.
>
OK. I'm running getmail 4.20.0, which is latest for Fedora 13 - I know,
my mail server need a distro upodate. Maybe next week if the weather is
bad.
> Yeah, I notice you cheat about as badly as I do.
>
:-)
...and anyway, if you're sitting behind fetchmail or getmail you MUST
accept all mail that gets that far, so about all you can go with spam is
bin or quarantine it. As it happens, I recently wrote PHP tool that
lists all quarantined mail and lets me inspect it. I also have a cron
job that bins quarantined mail thats over 'n' days old and spamkiller's
rejections get logged and included in the daily logwatch report.
> It works and I can see how.
> I'd still go through procmail to the mail spool. We pick it up using DoveCot
> for POP3(S) and IMAP(S). POP3 is delivery. IMAP is "feed it back to be learned
> as spam."
>
Each to their own. I pass everything through Postfix as my MTA because
it has an 'always_bcc' directive that copies all incoming and outgoing
messages to my mail archive. I also wrote an SA plugin that whitelists
all messages sent by somebody that the mail archive knows I've sent mail
to.
So what goes round comes round.
Martin
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote:
>
>> Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable
>> package for SL6.1.
>>
> Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd
> expect other distros to include it too.
I am canny enough for that. I ran "yum list getmail" and since rpmforge
is enabled that one popped up. It MAY be the latest. SL6.1 is basically
RHEL 6.1.
> The following is not to tell you what you already know, but is included
> in case others find it useful. I think we may be using similar
> configurations. I call spamc as part of getmail's mda chain. Logically
> it looks like:
>
> getmail mda="spamc | spamkiller | sendmail" --> postfix
Hopefully I can feed getmail through procmail. I have some basic don't
bother me ever rules built into procmail. I also have some priority beeps
and boops for received emails being generated from procmail. "formail" is
a nice tool for that.
> where the quoted part is written as a shell script that getmail calls.
> spamkiller is my own code. It passes ham to sendmail to deliver to my
> MTA and can either quarantine spam or send it to /dev/null
Yeah, I notice you cheat about as badly as I do. It works and I can see how.
I'd still go through procmail to the mail spool. We pick it up using DoveCot
for POP3(S) and IMAP(S). POP3 is delivery. IMAP is "feed it back to be learned
as spam."
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote:
> Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable
> package for SL6.1.
>
Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd
expect other distros to include it too.
The following is not to tell you what you already know, but is included
in case others find it useful. I think we may be using similar
configurations. I call spamc as part of getmail's mda chain. Logically
it looks like:
getmail mda="spamc | spamkiller | sendmail" --> postfix
where the quoted part is written as a shell script that getmail calls.
spamkiller is my own code. It passes ham to sendmail to deliver to my
MTA and can either quarantine spam or send it to /dev/null
Martin
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 03:44, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 21:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
>>
> Minor point: fetchmail is known to be buggy, amongst which is a bad
> habit of leaving previously read mail in the source mailbox, where it
> remains forever or until you take specific action to delete it.
>
> I swapped over to using getmail and won't be going back.
>
>
> Martin
Thank you, sir. I'll check it out. RPM Forge has a suitable package for SL6.1.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 21:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
>
Minor point: fetchmail is known to be buggy, amongst which is a bad
habit of leaving previously read mail in the source mailbox, where it
remains forever or until you take specific action to delete it.
I swapped over to using getmail and won't be going back.
Martin
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 05:54, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700
> jdow wrote:
>
>> On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote:
>>>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers
>>>> into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my
>>>> received mail marked as spam.
>>>
>>> what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?
>>>
>>
>> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
>
>
> Since this sounded unlikely, I did a search for this and the only
> relevant bug I could find was Bug 5925. In this you appear to have
> assumed that it was a fetchmail related problem and that it was to do
> with trusted or internal networks. As far as I can see there is no
> evidence for any problem other than the limitation that
> whitelist_from_rcvd relies on reverse dns being encoded in MX servers.
> This has no effect on RBLs.
I never found a way to get trusted to work. Trusted SHOULD extend to the
Earthlink servers. However....
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700
jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote:
> >> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers
> >> into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my
> >> received mail marked as spam.
> >
> > what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?
> >
>
> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
Since this sounded unlikely, I did a search for this and the only
relevant bug I could find was Bug 5925. In this you appear to have
assumed that it was a fetchmail related problem and that it was to do
with trusted or internal networks. As far as I can see there is no
evidence for any problem other than the limitation that
whitelist_from_rcvd relies on reverse dns being encoded in MX servers.
This has no effect on RBLs.
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/13 05:44, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700, jdow wrote:
>>> what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?
>> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
>
> hmp, spamassassin still can excempt whitelisted/blacklisted ips, if you want it
> to, it does not count how you feed spamassassin for testing, fetchmail ip must
> be trusted
>
> what bug number is it ?
So long ago I don't remember....
Whitelisting that particular received header address is not a good idea. I
was starting to contemplate a meta rule to cancel the HOSTKARMA score. It
appears the earthlink servers have vanished from the HOSTKARMA list. I am
not sure my blood pressure will tolerate reenabling it.
{^_^}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?
> A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and
> SpamAssassin.
hmp, spamassassin still can excempt whitelisted/blacklisted ips, if you
want it to, it does not count how you feed spamassassin for testing,
fetchmail ip must be trusted
what bug number is it ?
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their
>> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as
>> spam.
>>
>> Damn fools.
>> {+_+}
>
> what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?
>
A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin.
{+_+}
Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote:
> The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into
> their
> list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail
> marked as
> spam.
>
> Damn fools.
> {+_+}
what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ?