I think the rising of CPU usage was only connected to this citibank
Phising Spambomb I recieved (and blocked - thanks to ASSP) yesterday.
Now CPU usage is below avarage
CPU Usage: 0.21% (8.63% avg) 12.75% avg
So it was just a coincident
Matti
Matti Haack [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreibt:
These
Hello list,
This is the regular expression in Level 1 Blocked File Extensions of my
ASSP install
exe|scr|pif|vb[es]|js|jse|ws[fh]|sh[sb]|lnk|bat|cmd|com|ht[ab]
However, postcard.exe attachments are being delivered to my catch-all
address. My understanding was that bad attachments would be
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
However, postcard.exe attachments are being delivered to my catch-all
address. My understanding was that bad attachments would be bounced.
What have I done wrong?
what version are you
fritz,
in the current build line #9274 should read
h2ASSP Configuration/h2
(note the missing bracket in the bigging)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-1.2.7.9%286%29--minor-typo-in-assp.pl-tf3180855.html#a8826797
Sent from the assp-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi people.
How I can use mysql in local domains?
I dont want to use LDAP.
regards,
Alex de Oliveira Silva
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web
You can use a simple text file with all your local adresse. If you
have your userbase in an SQL-Database only, you have to dump it into a
file.
The SQL Database is only available to share whitelist, delaydb and
redlist among servers
Matti
Hi people.
How I can use mysql in local
ASSP can not decode uuencoded emails which is how many of these are being
sent. It can not block based on attachment type if it can not see what is
in the email. Some of those will get caught by ClamAV if you are using that
with ASSP, but not all, as it comes down to how new are your
Doug Traylor wrote:
ASSP can not decode uuencoded emails which is how many of these are being
sent. It can not block based on attachment type if it can not see what is
in the email. Some of those will get caught by ClamAV if you are using that
with ASSP, but not all, as it comes down to
I believe that the default value of [SPFSoftError ./#SPFSoftError]
should be changed. Being a negative completion error but not a
rejection: 451 (Requested action aborted: local error in processing),
the sending server may continue to retry sending the message.
I have been sporadically seeing
This one should handle FPs reported by Wim Borgs.
REPLACE:
$uri=~s/$URIContinuationRe\.?//go; # and strip line continuations
# decode quoted-printables
$uri=~s/\=([a-f0-9]{2})/chr(hex($1))/gie;
# decode 'at' character
$uri=~s/\%40/@/g;
$uri=~s/\\#0?64\;?/@/g;
if
You can use this to block all UUENCODED attachments:
\bbegin\b \d\d\d \b\S{0,72}.*(\S{61}).{0,61}\bend\b# UUECODED attachment
Excellent, although I have been a little leary to use too many regex's due
to fear of the unknown. What, please, is the key to that one that
identifies a uuencoded
correction:
$uri=~s/\\#1[03]\;?.*$//i;
$uri=~s/\(?:nbsp|amp|quot|gt|lt)\;?//gi;
$uri=~s/(?:$URISubDelimsCharRe|\.)+$//;
should be:
$uri=~s/\\#1[03]\;?.*$//;
$uri=~s/\(?:nbsp|amp|quot|gt|lt)\;?//gi;
$uri=~s/(?:$URISubDelimsCharRe|\.)+$//o;
Doug Traylor wrote:
Excellent, although I have been a little leary to use too many regex's due
to fear of the unknown. What, please, is the key to that one that
identifies a uuencoded email?
The keys are the begin, end, and the character lengths in between.
It has been a while since I
I would recommend that the default be changed to a 550, and that this
error response function only be used when intentionally rejecting
softfail and neutral responses. Otherwise, I think the reply code
should
be a 200.
I do not understand. When should here happen what? There is no
reply-code
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
I believe that the default value of [SPFSoftError ./#SPFSoftError]
should be changed. Being a negative completion error but not a
rejection: 451 (Requested action aborted: local error in processing),
the sending server may continue to retry sending the message.
I
Kevin wrote:
This could possibly work. However for the sake of simplicity it would be
better to not have a separate softfail response. As much as I love ASSP
for the control it gives i don't see it being useful. ( Perhaps someone
else does? )
I agree. Keeping it simple is probably the
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
I would recommend that the default be changed to a 550, and that this
error response function only be used when intentionally rejecting
softfail and neutral responses. Otherwise, I think the reply code
should
be a 200.
I do not understand. When should here
I agree. Keeping it simple is probably the best approach in this
case.
ASSP is either rejecting because of a SPF return code or not. In-turn
it makes sense to have an SPF error response or not.
But it is requested that softfail and neutral are not blocking
conditions.
I think it is even more
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
I agree. Keeping it simple is probably the best approach in this
case.
ASSP is either rejecting because of a SPF return code or not. In-turn
it makes sense to have an SPF error response or not.
But it is requested that softfail and neutral are not blocking
I think the only time ASSP should send something other than a 2xx
status
for a softfail would be when the admin is intentionally failing
softfails,
we are talking only here about intentionally failing softfail and/or
neutral.
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
I think the only time ASSP should send something other than a 2xx
status
for a softfail would be when the admin is intentionally failing
softfails,
we are talking only here about intentionally failing softfail and/or
neutral.
I think so?
I'll try to explain how
Kevin wrote:
I think so?
I'll try to explain how I would imagine this working.
From what I understand of the SPF specification messages that are
softfail or neutral should be accepted and a 2xx status should be sent.
If ASSP were configured to fail either softfail or neutral the SPF error
The 451 softfail response probably came from rfc 4408 section 2.5.5:
A SoftFail result should be treated as somewhere between a Fail
and a Neutral. The domain believes the host is not authorized but
is not willing to make that strong of a statement. Receiving
software SHOULD NOT reject the
Thank you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micheal
Espinola Jr
Sent: 06 February 2007 16:34
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Attachment blocking failure - uuencoded
Doug Traylor
24 matches
Mail list logo
