[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, as I've found in RFC's all header fields in message should
be encoded to 7-bit data.
s/should/must/
In addition my SMTP server does *not* support 8-bit MIME for
incoming e-mail.
That's very uncommon and lot of mail will be probably rejected
due to this.
Hello!
This an email sample:
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:01 +0200
Received: from k2smtpout02-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net
([64.202.189.90]:46436)
by dobrogea.romedchim.com with smtp (Exim 4.68)
Hello. I'm running SA 3.2.4. When I run spamassassin --lint -D I get
a bunch of warnings like those below. I'm seeing the same two warnings
for many of the files in /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002004 and
/etc/mail/spamassassin. Any ideas on how to fix these? Thanks!
[32690] warn: my variable $l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In addition my SMTP server does *not* support 8-bit MIME for
incoming e-mail.
On 01.04.08 10:52, Enrico Scholz wrote:
That's very uncommon and lot of mail will be probably rejected
due to this.
are there known problems with mailers that can send/receive 8-bit but
On Monday 31 March 2008 22:53:45 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Such IP's are thus not designed to send mail directly to recipients - users
have to send mail through mailserver with static IP that can autenticate
them.
On 31.03.08 22:06, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
True. The problem is,
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 16:06:25 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 22:53:45 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Such IP's are thus not designed to send mail directly to recipients -
users have to send mail through mailserver with static IP that can
autenticate them.
On
Hello,
I am a first-time user of SpamAssasin. While testing content for a client I
received the below results:
0.6 HTML_90_100 BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML
0.9 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
2.3 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 BODY: HTML: images with
Hi list-
Sorry if this is a FAQ.
I'm running latest SA with qmail (through qmail-scanner-st) for my
home domain. How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I want SA to either not scan it or give it
and another mail false positive:
2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?91.151.146.244]
1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
Matus UHLAR - fantomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In addition my SMTP server does *not* support 8-bit MIME for
incoming e-mail.
That's very uncommon and lot of mail will be probably rejected
due to this.
are there known problems with mailers that can send/receive
8-bit but can't encode
Roman Serbski escribió:
How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I want SA to either not scan it or give it less score
(whitelisting?). At the same time, the scoring for the whole domain
will remain
Roman Serbski escribió:
How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address?
Actually, I think you need whitelist_to, same syntax as whitelist_from.
There are other options: more_spam_to and all_spam_to. See the
documentation at
On Tue, April 1, 2008 20:17, Diego Pomatta wrote:
Roman Serbski escribió:
How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I want SA to either not scan it or give it less score
(whitelisting?). At the
Benny Pedersen escribió:
On Tue, April 1, 2008 20:17, Diego Pomatta wrote:
Roman Serbski escribió:
How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I want SA to either not scan it or give it less
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
and another mail false positive:
2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?91.151.146.244]
1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:09:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
I think that mail from self to self should be ignored by the AWL.
(it's harder to forged mail from a regular correspondent, so this
makes AWL more useful)
If you know the mail is from
Benn, you are missing the point. AWL is working very well for our
needs. What I am pointing out is that AWL should not be used for
mail from self to self, because this is an easy forgery. AWL counts
on the spammer not being able to forge someone you correspond with
normally. This is
Still looking for some suggestion on this
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to upgrade spamassassin twice with no avail. Current
version running is 3.2.3 on Solaris 8
cpan install Mail::SpamAssassin
Running install for module
Hi Josie,
At 09:09 01-04-2008, Josie Walls wrote:
I am a first-time user of SpamAssasin. While testing content for a
client I received the below results:
0.6 HTML_90_100 BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML
0.9 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
2.3
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5591
-Original Message-
From: Asif Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:59 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade SpamAssassin failing
Still looking for some suggestion on this
On Mar 29, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
the AWL is keyed on email address and /16 of the sending IP
address, so
this may warrant more investigation. could you post the Received hdrs
from the spam that hit the AWL, and a ham that properly hits the AWL?
I still believe that self-self
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Rosenbaum, Larry M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5591
Thanks a lot. I will change the PATH during the make
and report back to the bug site and here my experience
-Original Message-
From: Asif
On Mar 28, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 27.03.08 19:58, ram wrote:
I personally dont like the traditional spamcop report method of
forwarding
Spamcop uses a double confirm method, and to confirm all mails is a
pain. I will look at how to automate this. I trust spamcop
Jo Rhett wrote:
Benn, you are missing the point. AWL is working very well for our
needs.
I have never been fond of AWL because the information it relies upon,
the mail headers, is very easy to forge. It depends too much upon
trusting the sender. And in the case of spam that trust model is
Jo Rhett writes:
On Mar 29, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
the AWL is keyed on email address and /16 of the sending IP
address, so
this may warrant more investigation. could you post the Received hdrs
from the spam that hit the AWL, and a ham that properly hits the AWL?
I
On Tue, April 1, 2008 21:43, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:09:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
I think that mail from self to self should be ignored by the AWL.
(it's harder to forged mail from a regular correspondent, so this
makes
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Roman Serbski wrote:
I'm running latest SA with qmail (through qmail-scanner-st) for my
home domain. How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I want SA to either not scan it or
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:09:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
I think that mail from self to self should be ignored by the AWL.
(it's harder to forged mail from a regular correspondent, so this
makes AWL
yay i finally had the pleasure of getting joe jobbed!
so i am looking at vbounce. i think it is working but when i
intentionally bounce to myself the by sending to a non existent
address, whitelist_bounce_relays does not seem to trigger. searching
the archives i noticed that this may have
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to me. At least some of the messages still retain the
headers so I can tell that we did not originate the message.
Yup. Big rise over the past two weeks.
Kurt
-Original Message-
From: William Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 17:07
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Dramatic increase in bounce messages to forged addresses
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411
On Tue, April 1, 2008 21:45, Jo Rhett wrote:
Benn, you are missing the point. AWL is working very well for our
needs.
good
What I am pointing out is that AWL should not be used for
mail from self to self, because this is an easy forgery.
explain why its a problem when awl logs ip
AWL
I'll second that - a tremendous increase
At 08:15 PM 4/1/2008, Kurt Buff wrote:
Yup. Big rise over the past two weeks.
Kurt
-Original Message-
From: William Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 17:07
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Dramatic
-Original Message-
From: Rod G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2008 1:26 a.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spamassassin lint warnings
Hello. I'm running SA 3.2.4. When I run spamassassin --lint -D I get
a bunch of warnings like those below. I'm
On Wed, April 2, 2008 02:06, William Terry wrote:
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
i have no clue either :-)
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to me. At least some of the messages
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
We haven't as of yet. I have been looking at it though since this last
burst of backscatter. Any idea how widely SPF record checking has been
adopted out
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Benny Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, April 1, 2008 20:17, Diego Pomatta wrote:
Roman Serbski escribió:
How do I configure SA to whitelist particular recipient's
email address? I mean if someone is sending a message to my local
email address I
38 matches
Mail list logo
