Search Results

Search found 1348 results on 54 pages for 'spam blocker'.

Page 3/54 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Why does Google mark one e-mail as spam while does not the other?

  - by nKn

  I've a Postfix installation which works fine, I don't get any trouble with mails sent through a mail client (in my case, Thunderbird or RoundCube) when the To: address is a GMail account. However, I recently needed to use the PHPMailer tool to send some e-mails to some GMail accounts, so I configured an account to be used via SASL authentication + TLS. I don't mean mass mailing, just 2-3 mails. If I send the e-mail from the Thunderbird or RoundCube clients, the mail is not marked as spam. However, if I use PHPMailer, it always gets catalogued as spam. So I compared both headers and I just can't find the reason why the second is marked as spam while the first one is just ok. The first header sent from a mail client which is not marked as spam: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.76.153.102 with SMTP id vf6csp230573oab; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.23.39 with SMTP id j7mr45544050oef.20.1408471699715; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mail.mydomain.com (X.ip-92-222-X.eu. [92.222.X.X]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t5si27115082oej.10.2014.08.19.11.08.18 for <[email protected]> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=92.222.X.X; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected] Received: by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix, from userid 111) id D8F69120293D; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:17 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471697; bh=wKMX9gkQ7tCLv8ezrG5t4bICm/SSLQsNfTdZMToksWw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qRNcYVdmk+n3D1uuv0FInTx7/LzH2ojck9DgCmabFPvfke233lkojUOjezCUGx7iV DL8EayZ28mzzzHpB7ETeMzop/5OS3BmvFtGKVD9gzc78cDIFXTDoRFAnkRWDR2IOxI SOn5tiyODTFpkbDgJOndzQ6qL5K0S9ASNGCZrNL4= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on vpsX.ovh.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from [192.168.1.111] (unknown [77.231.X.X]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: [email protected]) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 910341202624 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:17 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471697; bh=wKMX9gkQ7tCLv8ezrG5t4bICm/SSLQsNfTdZMToksWw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qRNcYVdmk+n3D1uuv0FInTx7/LzH2ojck9DgCmabFPvfke233lkojUOjezCUGx7iV DL8EayZ28mzzzHpB7ETeMzop/5OS3BmvFtGKVD9gzc78cDIFXTDoRFAnkRWDR2IOxI SOn5tiyODTFpkbDgJOndzQ6qL5K0S9ASNGCZrNL4= Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:24 +0100 From: My Name <[email protected]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: My other account <[email protected]> Subject: . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit . The second header sent from PHPMailer which is always marked as spam: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.76.153.102 with SMTP id vf6csp230832oab; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.121.67 with SMTP id li3mr44086252oeb.17.1408471930520; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mail.mydomain.com (X.ip-92-222-X.eu. [92.222.X.X]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w8si27103806obn.30.2014.08.19.11.12.10 for <[email protected]> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=92.222.X.X; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected] Received: by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix, from userid 111) id 1999D120293D; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:12:09 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471929; bh=N1JuHq1S+8GrjHcEK3xn8P1JS+ygEBv5LKe0BiXuVJo=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:From; b=K7tcPyArzSTY91VEw6mAAFtDurSGwgTLGkfUZdC5mqsg0g/1LzmZkgwdjj4NdJa6M E2kDz3dwYN8FcZmbampJYFXxj4NQVtSnzjiWV40rpfOFqD2rXDGNIyB2QOjBZZ4WK3 7s4lyoJ/BrdQH4en8ctLVsDHed/KpHD4iGFEl67E= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on vpsX.ovh.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from rpi.mydomain.com (unknown [77.231.X.X]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: [email protected]) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B42AF1202624 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:12:08 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471928; bh=N1JuHq1S+8GrjHcEK3xn8P1JS+ygEBv5LKe0BiXuVJo=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:From; b=iXPM0tS36swudPTT4FOHHtPi5Ll6LbR60kNqCinZ8utcWoFE31SFTpoMEq5aCM5ux wQMdFiN8c6vkjRGabmvqFTTIbwJsrToHo/4+Lt5HEBoQQE2Y3T+xGmnmGAHCS6stKB yb7SVmtrIAsVtSMKA8VYIbmu2oYqV3afYt7g0OMQ= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:12:07 +0200 To: [email protected] From: Trying another account <[email protected]> Reply-to: Trying another account <[email protected]> Subject: . Message-ID: <[email protected]> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.1 (phpmailer.sourceforge.net) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I also tried: Adding a User-Agent header to match the first one. Removing the X-Mailer header. No one of them made a difference. Is there some significant difference which is making the second e-mail to be marked as spam by Google?

  Read the article

• configure spam assassin to delete all spam above a score domain wide and override individual settin

  - by Marlon

  Okay, so this is my scenario and what I want to try and do. I maintain a Red Hat email server running qmail and spamassassin. I have a domain that has well over 100 email account each with individual settings for spam scores and, whether or not to delete email incoming mail deemed spam. What I want to accomplish is to change all those email email accounts to say a more stringent spam score value, AND to enable the deletion of email immediately as it flagged as such, for EACH AND EVERY email box. In short, I want to be able to override a user's individual settings spam settings, with my own. Short of tediously going into each and every email box one by one, is there an way to do this all in one fell swoop? Any advice would be greatly appreciated! :-)

  Read the article

• How do I stop spam comments on my Blogger blog?

  - by Amr ElGarhy

  I get a lot of spam comments on my Blogger blog, and I always reject them. But i want to find a way to prevent these comments from reaching my blog in the first place. To reject them automatically. How can I do that?

  Read the article

• why my zimbra mail servr mail are going into spam flder of yahoo, hotmail etc

  - by sadiq

  hi friends, All mails from my new zimbra mail server are going into spam and junk folder of yahoo or hotmail.... any suggestion to delver them direct into inbox... below is header part of my mail from yahoo... X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.963 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.963 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1] autolearn=no Received: from mail.sara.co.in ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sara.co.in [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLBlyaY6ENGi; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:09 +0530 (IST) Received:from mail.sara.co.in (mail.sara.co.in [192.168.1.1]) by mail.sara.co.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC6C3538001; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:08 +0530 (IST) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:08 +0530 (IST)

  Read the article

• Training a spam filter based on Mailman moderator's actions?

  - by mc0e

  I'm planning a Mailman server, and looking for a good way to enable list moderators train a spam filter (likely to be either spamassassin or dspam). Has anyone come up with a good way to run training based on list moderator's decisions? Currently I don't have any better strategies than asking list moderators to forward spams one by one to a training address, which seems laborious and most likely to be inconsistently applied. Any ideas? I am aware of https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/558292 . I'm hoping someone has a better approach.

  Read the article

• Hotmail — avoid sign up confirmation / lost password being marked as spam

  - by Xerxes Cameron

  When sending legit large volume Emails from our IP (e.g. for sign up confirmation or Lost password) it gets marked as Junk in Hotmail. In the past, there was the Sender ID SPF Record Submission Form, where you could put yourself on the radar of Microsoft. See this old discussion. However, as of April 2012 this has been abandoned. Any hints what to do now? What is a good way to contact the Hotmail team?

  Read the article

• Someone using my website for Email and significant increase in spam

  - by Joy

  Let me give you the background in context so that you know the full story. Last summer my web guy (he put my website together) got in a fight with someone who attempted to register on my site using the name of my company as part of his user name. I was not aware of this at all until it had escalated dramatically. I don't know why my web guy was so unprofessional in his response to this person. I really don't know him - met him via SCORE and have never met in person. He is a vendor. Anyway, this guy who got into it with my web guy then threatened to do all he could to hurt my business and said he was internet savvy, etc. So, nothing seemed to happen for a while then not long ago this guy attempted to send me a friend request on Linkedin. After his behavior I declined it. Shortly afterwards I began seeing a dramatic increase in spammers posting comments on the blog part of my site. Just lately I have been receiving Emails from a variety of names but all with the "@___" that I own - for my business. I had additional security added so now they have to register in order to comment on my blog and I am seeing a lot of registration attempts from the same (and similar) IP addresses with bogus names and weird Email addresses being blocked. So, it is not creating more work as it is all automatic. The Email addresses are of more concern. Is there a way to identify a person through an IP address or a place to report the behavior or the Email usage? This guy lives in South Carolina so he is not overseas. Any help/advice you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Joy

  Read the article

• How to batch remove spamming users and pages they created on MediaWiki?

  - by Problemania

  I'm trying to clean up a MediaWiki instance which has been subjected to spamming and vandalism for a period of time. The current status is that there are a large number of users which only created spam pages but typically not altered legitimate pages. And there is only < 10 users which I know are legitimate users and created a small number of legitimate pages. Abstractly, my idea of fixing the messy situation is to find the complete list of users that are not in that small set of legitimate users, and use RenameUser extension to rename them all to a Spammer user, and use Nuke extension to mass delete all pages it created. Any practical advice on how to proceed? Since there are hundreds of spammer users, how do I effectively rename them? It seems Renameuser extension does not support automated batch renaming of users by allowing users to be renamed with a list or file.

  Read the article

• Why do spammers use CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE?

  - by fmz

  I am running a website for a volunteer organization that hosts an annual event. There is a form where people can volunteer to bring items for the event. All too frequently I get spam from users across the globe that enter things like this: Country - 1: Australia Material - 1: CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE Country - 2: Australia Material - 2: C8 Newton Country - 3: Australia Material - 3: ETX 125EC Country - 4: Australia Material - 4: ETX 125EC Country - 5: Australia Material - 5: CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE I don't really care about the country, but what is it with the telescope stuff? Is there some hidden meaning behind all this or is it some astronomy group that moonlights as spammers?

  Read the article

• Spam Assassin on windows

  - by ebeworld

  I just installed spam assassin and run for its sample ham mail as spamassassin sample-nonspam.txt, but it ended up marking it as a spam. What configuration am i missing to change? Result of the check is: From: Keith Dawson To: [email protected] Subject: **SPAM** TBTF ping for 2001-04-20: Reviving Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:59:58 -0400 Message-Id: X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on ebeworld-PC X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.5 required=6.3 tests=DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100, RAZOR2_CHECK shortcircuit=no autolearn=no version=3.2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_4BF17E8E.BF8E0000" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------=_4BF17E8E.BF8E0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This mail is probably spam. The original message has been attached intact in RFC 822 format. Content preview: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TBTF ping for 2001-04-20: Reviving T a s t y B i t s f r o m t h e T e c h n o l o g y F r o n t [...] Content analysis details: (10.5 points, 6.3 required) 2.4 DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS RBL: Envelope sender listed in bl.open-whois.org. 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level above 50% [cf: 58] 2.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 58] 3.6 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/) 0.0 DIGEST_MULTIPLE Message hits more than one network digest check ------------=_4BF17E8E.BF8E0000 Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-spam-type=original Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by mail.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392E1114061 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:34:46 +0000 (Eire) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09630 for tbtf-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sgi04-e.std.com (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08749 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA8278330 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dawson@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26781 for [email protected]; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sgi04-e.std.com (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07541 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA8416421 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [208.192.102.193] (ppp0c199.std.com [208.192.102.199]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14226 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:59:58 -0400 To: [email protected] From: Keith Dawson Subject: TBTF ping for 2001-04-20: Reviving Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: [email protected] Precedence: list Reply-To: [email protected] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TBTF ping for 2001-04-20: Reviving T a s t y B i t s f r o m t h e T e c h n o l o g y F r o n t Timely news of the bellwethers in computer and communications technology that will affect electronic commerce -- since 1994 Your Host: Keith Dawson ISSN: 1524-9948 This issue: < http://tbtf.com/archive/2001-04-20.html > To comment on this issue, please use this forum at Quick Topic: < http://www.quicktopic.com/tbtf/H/kQGJR2TXL6H > ________________________________________________________________________ Q u o t e O f T h e M o m e n t Even organizations that promise "privacy for their customers" rarely if ever promise "continued privacy for their former customers..." Once you cancel your account with any business, their promises of keeping the information about their customers private no longer apply... you're not a customer any longer. This is in the large category of business behaviors that individuals would consider immoral and deceptive -- and businesses know are not illegal. -- "_ankh," writing on the XNStalk mailing list ________________________________________________________________________ ..TBTF's long hiatus is drawing to a close Hail subscribers to the TBTF mailing list. Some 2,000 [1] of you have signed up since the last issue [2] was mailed on 2000-07-20. This brief note is the first of several I will send to this list to excise the dead addresses prior to resuming regular publication. While you time the contractions of the newsletter's rebirth, I in- vite you to read the TBTF Log [3] and sign up for its separate free subscription. Send "subscribe" (no quotes) with any subject to [email protected] . I mail out collected Log items on Sun- days. If you need to stay more immediately on top of breaking stories, pick up the TBTF Log's syndication file [4] or read an aggregator that does. Examples are Slashdot's Cheesy Portal [5], Userland [6], and Sitescooper [7]. If your news obsession runs even deeper and you own an SMS-capable cell phone or PDA, sign up on TBTF's WebWire- lessNow portal [8]. A free call will bring you the latest TBTF Log headline, Jargon Scout [9] find, or Siliconium [10]. Two new columnists have bloomed on TBTF since last summer: Ted By- field's roving_reporter [11] and Gary Stock's UnBlinking [12]. Late- ly Byfield has been writing in unmatched depth about ICANN, but the roving_reporter nym's roots are in commentary at the intersection of technology and culture. Stock's UnBlinking latches onto topical sub- jects and pursues them to the ends of the Net. These writers' voices are compelling and utterly distinctive. [1] http://tbtf.com/growth.html [2] http://tbtf.com/archive/2000-07-20.html [3] http://tbtf.com/blog/ [4] http://tbtf.com/tbtf.rdf [5] http://www.slashdot.org/cheesyportal.shtml [6] http://my.userland.com/ [7] http://www.sitescooper.org/ [8] http://tbtf.com/pull-wwn/ [9] http://tbtf.com/jargon-scout.html [10] http://tbtf.com/siliconia.html [11] http://tbtf.com/roving_reporter/ [12] http://tbtf.com/unblinking/ ________________________________________________________________________ S o u r c e s For a complete list of TBTF's email and Web sources, see http://tbtf.com/sources.html . ________________________________________ B e n e f a c t o r s TBTF is free. If you get value from this publication, please visit the TBTF Benefactors page < http://tbtf.com/the-benefactors.html > and consider contributing to its upkeep. ________________________________________________________________________ TBTF home and archive at http://tbtf.com/ . To unsubscribe send the message "unsubscribe" to [email protected]. TBTF is Copy- right 1994-2000 by Keith Dawson, <[email protected]>. Commercial use prohibited. For non-commercial purposes please forward, post, and link as you see fit. _______________________________________________ Keith Dawson [email protected] Layer of ash separates morning and evening milk. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQCVAwUBOuCi3WAMawgf2iXRAQHeAQQA3YSePSQ0XzdHZUVskFDkTfpE9XS4fHQs WaT6a8qLZK9PdNcoz3zggM/Jnjdx6CJqNzxPEtxk9B2DoGll/C/60HWNPN+VujDu Xav65S0P+Px4knaQcCIeCamQJ7uGcsw+CqMpNbxWYaTYmjAfkbKH1EuLC2VRwdmD wQmwrDp70v8= =8hLB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------=_4BF17E8E.BF8E0000--

  Read the article

• Spamassassin one-liner to tag & move mail with an X-Spam-Flag: YES to a new directory?

  - by ane

  Say you have a directory with tens of thousands of messages in it. And you want to separate the spam from the non-spam. Specifically, you would like to: Run spamassassin against the directory, tagging each message with an X-Spam-Flag: YES if it thinks it's spam Have a tcsh shell or perl one-liner grep all mail with the flag and move those mails to /tmp/spam What command can you run to accomplish this? For example, some pseudocode: /usr/local/bin/spamassassin -eL ./Maildir/cur/* | grep "X-Spam-Flag: YES" | mv %1 /tmp/spam

  Read the article

• Free Windows Application Blocker/Monitor

  - by Click Ok

  I want a free application monitor that when detects certain keywords on window title by example, it closes the application (or prevents that it opens/install). Nice extra will be if the program log the application activity too and internet sites accessed by any browser. Thank you very much! PS: I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate.

  Read the article

• Is there a way to force spam-filter to change their policy or remove them as recognized spam service?

  - by Alvin Caseria

  As per mxtoolbox I got 1 blacklist still active for quite sometime now. UCEPROTECTL1's is running on 7 day policy since last spam mail. This is too strict compared to the 98 other spam filters out there as per mxtoolbox. (Or at least to the other 4 that detected the problem) I have no problem with our e-mail since it is hosted locally. But our domain is hosted outside the country and it run on a different IP. I contacted them but since it is the spam-filter's rule, there's nothing to be done but wait. I do believe services like spam-filters should at lease be bounded by guidelines and standards for this matter. Otherwise problem on delivering valid (after the fix) e-mails will be disastrous. Is there a way to force UCEPROTECT to change their policy or remove them as recognized spam service? Apart from contacting them in case they do not answer. Currently they are charging for fast removal if you pay by PayPal. I'm still looking for guideline/standard on how they should operate regarding this matter. Appreciate the help.

  Read the article

• Spam just keeps on coming

  - by Campo

  I administer a Windows Server 2003 with Exchange 2003 as well as GFI installed. I am watching the GFI dashboard and every third email is spam. Not only that it goes to a non existent address then the [email protected] sends out an NDR to the sender. Should I be worried about this? I know it is directory harvesting but we have directory harvesting turned on in GFI and I do see it is working but obviously doesn't work for emails that don't exist. My issue is I would turn off NDR but then people who legitimately mistype and email address to our domain will never know their email did not get to the recipient. What do others do to combat spam? Is 3 times the amount of spam to ham normal? We filter out 90% of the spam but some does get into the users inbox. Thanks for the suggestions and advice!

  Read the article

• Spam mail through SMTP and user spoofing

  - by Josten Moore

  I have noticed that it's possible to telnet into a mailserver that I own and send spoofed messages to other clients. This only works for the domain that the mail server is regarding; I cannot do it for other domains. For example; lets say that I own example.com. If I telnet example.com 25 I can successfully send a message to another user without authentication: HELO local MAIL FROM: [email protected] RCPT TO: [email protected] DATA SUBJECT: Whatever this is spam Spam spam spam . I consider this a big problem; how do I secure this?

  Read the article

• Postfix: mail going to spam

  - by Yaro

  All emails I send from my new server go to spam in Gmail (and sometimes yahoo). I've never before sent out mass email or spam. What I've already done: Configured reverse DNS Enabled DKIM Verified my IP is not on spam lists Verified I'm not an open relay Here are the headers from the received message: http://pastie.org/pastes/8450781/text?key=onxgrau1xinyqv7ridxrea Really, can't seem to figure out why the mail just doesn't come through. I'd really appreciate your help. Thank you!

  Read the article

• spam email forwarding by server

  - by kikio

  Let's start with this scenario: We have a mailbox (i.e. in yahoo), every message is sent by this account, marked as spam by Gmail spam filter. (because the address or sender IP is blacklisted, not because of content) There is a server which is able to forward incoming messages to another address (email forwarding), for example, to a Gmail mailbox. And it is not blacklisted. The question is: If we send a message, through the dirty mailbox to the server, and server forward it to a Gmail mailbox, will it marked as spam by spam filters?

  Read the article

• Linux command line based spam checker?

  - by anonymous-one

  Does a command line based spam checker exist? We have created a mailbox at a 3rd party, and unfortunately decided on spam checking 'disabled' in the initial setup. There is no way to re-enable spam checking, the mailbox must be delete (and thus all contents lost) and re-created. Does anything exist where we can pump in either: A) Subject + from + to + body + all other fields. OR B) Raw message dump (headers + body). And the command line will let us know weather the email is possibly spam? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Server is sending SPAM but it's not an open relay

  - by alexandernst

  I have a problem with Dovecot + Postfix. My server is sending SPAM from the local user "dovecot", but my server is not configured as an open relay (mails can be sent without auth-ing only from localhost). Also, nobody except me, has SSH access to the server. How can I find what exactly is triggering all those SPAM mails? How can I get something like a backtrace that shows what exactly happened the moments before a SPAM email got in the queue of postfix? Regards

  Read the article

• Sending Emails via Google SMTP - after some time quit working

  - by Chris

  on a website I use PHPMailer to send automated registration emails, etc and also a newsletter-tool (which loops through the emails and sends them one by one). Also, I configured in Gmail under Settings and confirmed @mydomain addresses, so I can send from @mydomain emails without the gmail address being displayed. Furthermore I authorized the website to send mails with this link: https://accounts.google.com/DisplayUnlockCaptcha Now, after 2 month where everything worked perfectly fine, suddenly users started not to receive emails anymore and most recently emails are not even being sent anymore. Also, I received many error messages like this: Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied (state 13). When I check at this link: https://toolbox.googleapps.com/apps/checkmx/ It tells 2 none critical errors: Relayhost configuration detected. There SHOULD be a valid SPF record. So, the questions I would have were: does anybody have any hint why it stopped working, what the error messages mean? what to do to fix it? where do I set a SPF record (Cpanel?)? what is a relayhost and how to fix that? It is about 1000-1400 mails a day (gmail's limit is 2000). Also, what can I do wrong when setting up an SPF record? I've heard there are some testing tools for that. Thank you so much already in advance for your help!

  Read the article

• phpBB3 antispam: mod for "patrolling" the forum?

  - by STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

  I've been working on various antispam measure in a phpBB3-based forum I host. Now I was thinking of an extension/mod that ties in with editing of posts (and later perhaps signatures/profiles) in that new text or edited text defaults to something like "not patrolled" and moderators could then in a special queue review text that contains links or similar item (based on heuristics). Now the question: does such a mod exist (I didn't find one)? If it does exist and anyone has used it (or them), please include your experiences with it in the answer.

  Read the article

• Recommendations for handling Directory Harvesting spam on Exchange 2003

  - by Aaron Alton

  Our Exchange server is getting slammed with anywhere between 450,000 and 700,000 spam messages per day. We receive about 1700 legitimate messages in the same time frame. Roughly 75% of the spam is directory harvesting. We currently have GFI MailEssentials installed. To it's credit, it's doing a very good job, but the sheer volume of spam that we're receiving, and the number of connections that our exchange server is making is preventing legitimate email from being delivered in a timely manner. GFI is set up to check for directory harvesting at the SMTP level, which I presume intercepts the mail before it hits the Exchange services , or goes through SMSE. This "module" is ordered at the top of the list, so (hopefully) dealing with the harvesting is consuming a minimum amount of server resources and bandwidth. My question is, is there anything I can do to prevent our Exchange server's connection pool from being eaten up by these spam hosts? We had to limit the number of concurrent connections being made by Exchange, because it was consuming all of our bandwidth. Thanks, in advance.

  Read the article

• Malicious crawler blocker for ASP.NET

  - by Marek

  I have just stumbled upon Bad Behavior - a plugin for PHP that promises to detect spam and malicious crawlers by preventing them from accessing the site at all. Does something similar exist for ASP.NET/ASP.NET MVC? I am interested in blocking access to the site altogether, not in detecting spam after it was posted.

  Read the article

• If spambots are filling out forms on my website, should I mark the mail as spam?

  - by rob

  Apparently spambots have discovered the contact forms my website. I'm considering adding a CAPTCHA, but in the meantime I've been getting dozens of completed website forms in my Gmail account each day. I know I can configure a filter to always allow e-mails from my website to be delivered (i.e., "never send to spam"), but I'm wondering whether there are also larger implications. At first, I was marking the spam forms as spam because I figured it would block the sender's e-mail address from getting through again. But since then, I've given it some more thought. I know many spam filters use Bayesian filters and other techniques to identify spam based on its content. If I mark all these e-mails as spam, will legitimate e-mails from my website be marked as spam? Even if I stop marking the messages as spam, I can see another potential problem. My form is pretty standard (in fact, it's probably very similar to other online forms). If I mark my spambot-submitted website forms as spam, will Gmail begin to mark other people's similar-looking messages as spam?

  Read the article

• User-trainable spam filtering with Exim and Dovecot

  - by pascal

  Currently I'm using Exim to deliver mails via dovecot-lda into Dovecot mailboxes. I'd like to add spam filtering, but I don't want to reject false-positives in Exim, and I want to train the bayesian filter from the client. So: How do I configure a spamd such that spam lands in a Junk folder, and when the user finds spam in their Inbox, or ham in their Junk, they move it to the correct box which trains the spamd. I have found dovecot-antispam but I'm not sure about its quality, it only seems to support dspam (and crm114, which is dead, last release August 2009).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >