Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk
You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending (John ffitch)
2. Re: Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending (Nick Rickard)
3. Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or hibernate
often? (Winnie Lacesso)
4. Re: Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or hibernate
often? (Chris)
5. Re: Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending (Steve King)
6. Re: Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or hibernate
often? (Alex Butcher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:50:44 +0100 (BST)
From: John ffitch <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: Re: [bristol] Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406221342520.26812@snout.codemist.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
I run exim with spamhaus, clamav and then spamassassin, with a few local
rules in exim, and a local list of spammers who have anoyed me. In a
typical week one or sometimes two spams make it to my personal (emacs)
filter and to the mail file. If you want to see me exim rules send me
e-mail off-list.
Most rejections are by exim (pretending to me, spamhaus etc), with about
1% each for clamAV and spamassassin.
A pain to maintain sometimes but it is years since it was a problem
actually reading the cr*p.
One day I might institute 2 below; I found 1 gave too many problems.
==Johm ff
>
> You might want to do the basic stuff since its obvious that the sender is
> forged,
>
> 1 - no reverse DNS drop it.
>
> 2 - use an aggressive SPF policy
>
> 3 - so you use SPAMHAUS or SORBS etc etc etc to pre filter?.
>
>
> When I had the duty to deal with mail ( along time ago ), I used to pre
> filter through clamav then spamhaus and friends before using spamassassin
> which got fed the dregs.
>
> worked pretty good actually.
>
> Nige
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Nick Rickard <nick@nickrickard.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm currently using exim with spamassassin for my mail. For various
>> reasons I accept all mail for @domain.com . Recently I seem to get
>> periodic floods of emails that spamassassin identifies as possible spam but
>> not to ditch (the threshold is right as occasional ham goes in here). The
>> flood emails all have the same sender and subject but come to different
>> recipients @domain.com .
>>
>> So I'd like either a spamassassin rule that says:
>> If (same sender more than 4 times in last 10mins) then (add 5 to spam
>> score)
>> Or a local .forward rule of:
>> If (same sender more than 4 times in last 10mins) then (move to spam
>> folder).
>>
>> Is it possible to create such a rule, please, or any other ideas to
>> address?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bristol mailing list
>> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ?Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.?
>
> Alan Turing
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140622/13ffe95d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
> End of Bristol Digest, Vol 555, Issue 3
> ***************************************
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:45:51 +0100
From: Nick Rickard <nick@nickrickard.co.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: Re: [bristol] Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending
Message-ID: <53A6DE0F.6040600@nickrickard.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Thanks. I'm using Spamhaus and Sorbs to pre-filter in exim. I had a
half-hearted go at SPF but couldn't get it working.
It seems to be mainly new spam sources/subjects that hit me for the
period between when they start and when Spamhaus et al add them to the list.
Hence looking for a local rate-limiting solution.
Nick.
On 22/06/14 12:49, Nigel Sollars wrote:
> You might want to do the basic stuff since its obvious that the sender
> is forged,
>
> 1 - no reverse DNS drop it.
>
> 2 - use an aggressive SPF policy
>
> 3 - so you use SPAMHAUS or SORBS etc etc etc to pre filter?.
>
>
> When I had the duty to deal with mail ( along time ago ), I used to pre
> filter through clamav then spamhaus and friends before using
> spamassassin which got fed the dregs.
>
> worked pretty good actually.
>
> Nige
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Nick Rickard <nick@nickrickard.co.uk
> <mailto:nick@nickrickard.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently using exim with spamassassin for my mail. For various
> reasons I accept all mail for @domain.com <http://domain.com> .
> Recently I seem to get periodic floods of emails that spamassassin
> identifies as possible spam but not to ditch (the threshold is right
> as occasional ham goes in here). The flood emails all have the same
> sender and subject but come to different recipients @domain.com
> <http://domain.com> .
>
> So I'd like either a spamassassin rule that says:
> If (same sender more than 4 times in last 10mins) then (add 5 to
> spam score)
> Or a local .forward rule of:
> If (same sender more than 4 times in last 10mins) then (move to spam
> folder).
>
> Is it possible to create such a rule, please, or any other ideas to
> address?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick.
>
> _________________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk <mailto:Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/__mailman/listinfo/bristol
> <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ?Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.?
>
> Alan Turing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:26:06 +0100 (BST)
From: Winnie Lacesso <Winnie.Lacesso@bristol.ac.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: [bristol] Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or
hibernate often?
Message-ID:
<alpine.LRH.2.02.1406230825300.16516@rescue.phy.bris.ac.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear *,
Is it harder on one's home computer to stay powered up, or to
hibernate often, like hibernate it before goto work & resume when
get home, & also hibernate it before one retires for night & resume
computer in morning?
I tend to think it's harder on the hardware to hibernate
frequently. What is others' experience?
----
Bob Metcalf (inventor of ETHERNET) was a brilliant Harvard student. His
PhD dissertation can still be easily read for its content, though it was
not accepted initially by the Harvard committee as lacking in "analytic
content". The thesis was accepted after he added some equations. (!)
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:48:55 +0100
From: Chris <cshorler@googlemail.com>
To: Winnie.lacesso@bristol.ac.uk, Bristol and Bath Linux User Group
<bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or
hibernate often?
Message-ID: <fe7784c7-8e3b-49ea-ad60-5b08da2581ac@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 23 June 2014 08:26:06 BST, Winnie Lacesso <Winnie.Lacesso@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Dear *,
>
>Is it harder on one's home computer to stay powered up, or to
>hibernate often, like hibernate it before goto work & resume when
>get home, & also hibernate it before one retires for night & resume
>computer in morning?
>
>I tend to think it's harder on the hardware to hibernate
>frequently. What is others' experience?
>
No bad experience doing this yet.
Speculation:
I would expect that given the life of a HDD and the underutilisation of the swap partition on a modern system that you wouldn't see any bad effect for a very long time (I'm thinking decades). Maybe there's an effect for SSD, though this is probably mitigated at the firmware level.
Chris
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:38:10 +0100
From: "Steve King" <debian@invux.com>
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Spamassassin: deal with rapid sending
Message-ID:
<904aeb815e6adcb31d47192a6fec6280.squirrel@dazzle.invux.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently using exim with spamassassin for my mail. For various
> reasons I accept all mail for @domain.com . Recently I seem to get
> periodic floods of emails that spamassassin identifies as possible spam
> but not to ditch (the threshold is right as occasional ham goes in
> here). The flood emails all have the same sender and subject but come to
> different recipients @domain.com .
>
Is this not a good case for grey listing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting
I use postfix with postgrey, but there must be a solution for exim.
Downsides.
Site registrations - when you sign up for a new web site which expects you
to register via email, you will have to wait for the email to bounce
around your greylist time out before you can respond. It is possible to
temporarily disable this, which I do if I am in a tearing hurry.
Some large providers use multiple SMTP sources. Which means that often
your grey listing will lock the incoming mail in limbo until the 4 day
time out. The debian default configuration has some exceptions to deal
with this: eg amazon.
Some broken email systems will never attempt a second delivery. Do you
really want email from a broken system? In my experience this is very
rare.
--
Steve
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:19:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk>
To: Winnie.lacesso@bristol.ac.uk, Bristol and Bath Linux User Group
<bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Is it harder on computer to stay powered up, or
hibernate often?
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1406231016110.26384@nffheflf.pb.hx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Winnie Lacesso wrote:
> Is it harder on one's home computer to stay powered up, or to
> hibernate often, like hibernate it before goto work & resume when
> get home, & also hibernate it before one retires for night & resume
> computer in morning?
>
> I tend to think it's harder on the hardware to hibernate
> frequently. What is others' experience?
Depends.
Hibernating or shutting down a desktop is probably a bit tougher on the
hardware of _desktop_ computers due to temperature cycling.
But if you're talking about netbooks/laptops, then heat build-up, not to
mention constate charging of the battery if mains powered, may well be
tougher than shutting down or hibernating.
But to be honest, these days, the hardware will probably be obsolete before
it breaks...
Best Regards,
Alex
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
End of Bristol Digest, Vol 556, Issue 1
***************************************
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar