On Thursday, July 29, 2004, 12:55:10 AM, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 12:58 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 1:36:53 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
http://mailscanner.info MailScanner doesn't include or depend on SA (without SA one can still check for viruses and do old fashioned RBL lookups), but the only way to have MailScanner check SURBLs is to utilize its ability to call SA 2.63
- SpamCopURI or SA 3.0.
OK Thanks for that. I've taken MailScanner off the flyer.
http://www.surbl.org/flyer.html
Does anyone have any other comments for me?
Jeff C.
Yeah... SURBLs don't BLOCK anything. Blocking is up to the user. That point should be made. Surprisingly, lots of people get bent out of shape if you use the word BLOCK and EMAIL in the same sentence.
True, but I never said SURBLs block anything. I said: "SURBLs... are used to block messages." Technically SURBLs don't block anything. Programs that use SURBLs do the blocking....
Jeff C.
On Thursday 29 July 2004 12:09 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2004, 12:55:10 AM, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 12:58 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 1:36:53 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
http://mailscanner.info MailScanner doesn't include or depend on SA (without SA one can still check for viruses and do old fashioned RBL lookups), but the only way to have MailScanner check SURBLs is to utilize its ability to call SA 2.63 + SpamCopURI or SA 3.0.
OK Thanks for that. I've taken MailScanner off the flyer.
http://www.surbl.org/flyer.html
Does anyone have any other comments for me?
Jeff C.
Yeah... SURBLs don't BLOCK anything. Blocking is up to the user. That point should be made. Surprisingly, lots of people get bent out of shape if you use the word BLOCK and EMAIL in the same sentence.
True, but I never said SURBLs block anything. I said: "SURBLs... are used to block messages." Technically SURBLs don't block anything. Programs that use SURBLs do the blocking....
Right, we agree, but your paper didn't make this as clear as you just did above.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:17:36 -0800, John Andersen jsa@pen.homeip.net wrote:
On Thursday 29 July 2004 12:09 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2004, 12:55:10 AM, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 12:58 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 1:36:53 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
http://mailscanner.info MailScanner doesn't include or depend on SA (without SA one can still check for viruses and do old fashioned RBL lookups), but the only way to have MailScanner check SURBLs is to utilize its ability to call SA 2.63 + SpamCopURI or SA 3.0.
OK Thanks for that. I've taken MailScanner off the flyer.
http://www.surbl.org/flyer.html
Does anyone have any other comments for me?
Jeff C.
Yeah... SURBLs don't BLOCK anything. Blocking is up to the user. That point should be made. Surprisingly, lots of people get bent out of shape if you use the word BLOCK and EMAIL in the same sentence.
True, but I never said SURBLs block anything. I said: "SURBLs... are used to block messages." Technically SURBLs don't block anything. Programs that use SURBLs do the blocking....
Right, we agree, but your paper didn't make this as clear as you just did above.
How about... s/They are used to block messages which contain those domains or addresses/They are used to detect messages which contain those domains or addresses and classify them as spam/ ?
-
Jeff Chan -
John Andersen -
Mariano Absatz