Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a strange problem on one of my spamd servers since upgrading
to 3.1.3.
What version were you running previously on this host? Upgrade, or wipe
and clean install?
After awhile under heavy load, children are not exiting, ie the log show
BBBIII, and
jdow wrote:
I can see that the .gif only spam filters need to be broadened out
to handle .doc and probably proactively a bunch of other extensions.
Please don't tell me that Outlook Express renders .doc files.
Raimar Sandner wrote:
Hi!
SpamAssassin version 3.1.3 is reporting a false positive if the
sender (gmx address) has a dialup connection and the recepiant (also
gmx address) uses fetchmail to pull the message from pop.gmx.net
(see example below). The HELO_DYNAMIC rules apply because mail.gmx.net
Paul Boven wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
The message-ID's of mails that have been (auto-)learned by Bayes are
stored indefinitely in bayes_seen. Which, over the years that we've
used SpamAssassin now, has grown to a 320MB file. We're using
site-wide Bayes databases. What would be
jdow wrote:
They are sending spam bounce messages based on spamassassin testing
this list.
===8---
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following
On 6/30/2006 9:29 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Daryl,
You've told SA that your users aren't a part of your internal network
though. If you configure SA to treat your users as part of your
internal network then it won't do net tests on them.
For clarity, I should have said RBL and SPF tests
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go
Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] [30-06-2006 00:45]:
Mark Martinec wrote:
Hmm, I don't think that our own MSA is supposed to be tested for SPF.
It is normal?
Yeah, and correct. Your MSA is the host responsible for sending the
mail to your server running SA
I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
fill that in).
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.06.1401 +0200]:
Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
found an answer), you may be interested in checking out the last
paragraph of http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.06.06-delayed-mail,
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.06.2021 +0200]:
If you provide a full set of received headers that are being
passed to SA, someone can help you out with the correct settings.
I am having difficulties recreating the problem. Sometimes SA
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/30/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I see now that you want to unconditionally trust the MSA *and* all
hosts after it. Which is reasonable if the MSA is just an MSA. For
whatever reason you don't want to rely on auth tokens, etc. Seems
reasonable
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Earthlink mail servers are ABSODAMNLUTELY not part
of my internal network. But if I do not list them with trusted
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote:
It's better to look at the 'Authenticated sender':
Received: from bar.example.org (bar.example.org [127.0.0.1])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
(Authenticated sender:
Mark Martinec wrote:
What do you have to do to get that Authenticated sender: line? It's
not unpatched Postfix, is it? I know the Wietse was against such info
being provided.
Apparently postfix 2.3 will support auth tokens.
Any link document that? I'd like to add it to the wiki.
Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
For 99% of systems there's no need to worry about listing systems that
aren't a part of your mail network in your trusted_networks (and never
list them in your internal_networks). Keep
jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Loren. I have an account but the links from the main web site
don't take me to SA's bugzilla. it takes me to an appache bugzilla
page and SA is not on that list.
The redirector to the new URL wasn't working the other day for a bit.
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expected
jdow wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
One example is when you
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted
jdow wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something
Chris Santerre wrote:
dev@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list
Blockedby cbl.abuseat.org
Oh noes! :)
Both the users@ and dev@ lists use the same servers, so I don't see how
you'd have one listed and not the other.
Any particular IP that you see listed?
Daryl
Nothing trimmed in an attempt to keep things somewhat coherent...
Ross Boylan wrote:
Thank you for your very clear answers. I have a few follow-up questions
below.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 23:44 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the Mail
On 6/22/2006 12:18 PM, James Hindley wrote:
Here following is the error being returned when i run:
spamassassin -D --lint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# spamassassin -D --lint
Global symbol %opt requires explicit package name at
/usr/bin/spamassassin line 117.
Unmatched right curly bracket at
On 6/23/2006 10:24 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
The short of it is that I can't get unwhitelist_from_rcvd to
unwhitelist anything.
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] brasslantern.com
unwhitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] brasslantern.com
but this does not change anything. In fact I've
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on
Debian) I was unclear about trusted vs internal networks. After
reviewing previous emails on this list, here's what I think it is:
trusted_networks for hosts I trust to put good info in
On 6/12/2006 8:58 AM, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2006 15:50, Matt Kettler took the opportunity to write:
Glen Carreras wrote:
* 0.0 DK_SIGNED Domain Keys: message has an unverified signature
* -0.0 DK_VERIFIED Domain Keys: signature passes verification
From looking at the
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
One remark I haven't seen yet is that the DomainKey-Signature: field can
include an h tag, which specifies which header fields are included in the
signature. If that tag is included (and I think it usually is(?)) and there
aren't already any X-Spam-* fields that have
Mike L wrote:
I have SpamAssassin install with Perl 5.8.8 on a W2K3 box.
SA is the latest version.
I would like to setup the following
I need to know how to setup wrongmx.pm http://wrongmx.pm and
wrongmx.cf http://wrongmx.cf so that email that does not go to my spam
filter first will be
Not really. I have no idea how you've got your SA setup on Windows and
you haven't asked anything specific.
Daryl
On 6/11/2006 1:57 PM, Mike L wrote:
Thanks Daryl, but can you give me a little more info?
On 6/11/06, *Daryl C. W. O'Shea* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
never go
to the 50 record(directly to the box)
I would like to know if I need to modify local.cf http://local.cf or
if i just place this in the same local as local.cf http://local.cf
does it automatically work?
Is this a beter email?
On 6/11/06, *Daryl C. W. O'Shea* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto
On 6/10/2006 8:07 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A message with this set of SA headers just made it through to my mailbox.
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on
iceman12.giac.net
X-Spam-Level: **
Arias Hung wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea delivered in simple text monotype:
As for the copy_config timeouts... what kind of system load are you
seeing. 10, 50, 500, or higher? The current 20 seconds alarm is
twice the original alarm timeout, but if you've got a high
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 01:18:11 -0400:
Some even with T1s (probably quietly provisioned over
DSL) that have IPs smack in the middle of static business DSL ranges
that are listed in SORBS' dynamic list.
Nevertheless, it's their ISP's fault
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:46:48 -0400:
Still, when your ISP isn't responsive
As Chris says you better move away from them then if you can. If you can't
I'd really bother them day and night since I don't get what I paid for. My
Over the years
On 6/7/2006 9:58 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Guy Waugh wrote:
* I only turned on SA debugging for bayes and learn to get the above
log entries. Are bayes, learn and dns the only debugging flags
available? Maybe next time I should turn on dns debugging as well?
I know of at least one other...
On 6/7/2006 8:09 PM, Arias Hung wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea delivered in simple text monotype:
How long are messages (that are logged) taking to be scanned by
SpamAssassin when/before this happens. What timeout are you using
with spamc? You are using spamc, right
On 6/7/2006 8:51 PM, Arias Hung wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea delivered in simple text monotype:
Daryl
---snip---
Ah, and one more quick question while I'm at it. What would you suggest
would be the best way to increase the alarm timeout value?
Straight in the spamd
On 6/8/2006 12:05 AM, Greg Allen wrote:
However, the ISP dynamic address tests *do* belong in the MTA RBL
checks. The fraction of legitimate emails received from dynamic-IP
hosts is vanishingly small compared to the tens or hundreds of
thousands of compromised Windows boxen spewing spam and
On 6/8/2006 12:03 AM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Screaming Eagle wrote:
(1) countries.nerd.dk may not list vietnam. Take a look at their
website.
(2) The IP address may have been assigned to vietnam recently enough
that countries.nerd.dk doesn't have it (i.e. they are not
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.06.1401 +0200]:
Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
found an answer)
I am sorry (again), I only just saw
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.06.1848 +0200]:
Really? That makes no sense to me. I don't see anything in your
example header that we use as auth tokens. Actually, I don't see any
auth tokens. What's to stop someone from connecting with SSL
Arias Hung wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I actually limit my maxchildren to 4 due to the
intensive memory hogging nature of the beast. At present
I'm using a recent spamassassin compiled from the svn version
3.2.0-r386260. My spamassasin logs have absolutely no trace of the spam
that gets
Ben Wylie wrote:
Received: (from localhost [24.180.47.240])
by server. (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2006060503484615455
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:48:47 +0100
OK, we specifically skip received headers that start with ( at line
387 of Received.pm. Annoyingly, we don't
Ben Wylie wrote:
If you had the time to write a patch for this I would be very grateful, and
let me know what I would need to do to apply the patch, and if I would need
to make changes every time I upgraded.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4943
Daryl
On 6/5/2006 7:41 PM, Arias Hung wrote:
I've been having the issue lately of at least a few mails a day somehow
bypassing spamassassin via procmail entirely and showing up in my inbox.
Sometimes its more like a flood which forces me to inevitably to forward
my entire inbox through procmail
On 6/4/2006 9:54 PM, Ben Wylie wrote:
I have had a problem with a particular form of received header not being
parsed correctly because it is malformed. I had a brief conversation on this
list about a year ago with a glimmer of hope that in future versions this
would be overcome. However a year
On 6/4/2006 11:28 PM, Ben Wylie wrote:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by arkbb.co.uk with SMTP (HELO server.)
(ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.8.2)); Mon,
5 Jun 2006 03:48:52 +0100
Received: (from localhost [24.180.47.240])
by server. (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id
On 6/2/2006 11:44 PM, spectacularstuff wrote:
We already have SA setup and working with Smartermail. We would like to
hire someone that is familiar with SpamAssassin and a Windows 2003
server system in order to come set this thing up so that our own emails
are not being detected as SPAM. Is
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 0.01
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 0.10
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 0.50
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 0.00
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 3.70
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 7.50
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006
Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster wrote:
I found my problem. I had some custom definitions that used
eval:check_razor2_range. I deleted the custom definitions and the error
went away.
What were the custom rules you had that caused that error? It's likely
that we could add/improve validation of
On 5/29/2006 5:20 PM, George Georgalis wrote:
Looking at this block from above SpamAssassin.pm line 1469,
it's not clear to me how to avoid the warning/errors listed below.
note: I'm doing active (in smtp) filtering, and I do not want to
create a .spamassassin directory.
You don't say how,
Chris wrote:
On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:21 pm, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[9324] warn: trusted_networks doesn't contain internal_networks entry
'192.168/16'
[9324] warn: lint: 7 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled
for more information
Here is my local.cf entry for trusted_networks
Chris wrote:
On Saturday 27 May 2006 4:33 pm, you wrote:
Any why did --lint work fine every
time in 3.1.0? Commenting out the internal_networks entry and
restarting SA, --lint shows no errorrs now, why?
We're continuously improving the config parser's ability to detect
configuration *logic*
On 5/27/2006 11:44 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[9324] warn: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, MY_LRGROD .85
is
not valid for score, skipping: score MY_LRGROD .85
I thought this was required in 3.1.0 (but not 3.0.x) too, but anyway,
all
On 5/24/2006 5:46 AM, Rainer Sokoll wrote:
Hi all,
in my local.cf, I have (among others):
add_header all Contact Rainer Sokoll
If I pipe a mail through spamassassin, a header X-Spam-Contact: is
added, as expected. But spamd does not. spamd is called with these
options:
-d -u vscan
On 5/23/2006 2:51 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WebRedirectPlugin
there is a slight config error on the page
[WWW] http://people.apache.org/~dos/sa-plugins/3.1/WebRedirect.cf
[WWW] http://people.apache.org/~dos/sa-plugins/3.1/WebRedirect.pm
in the cf file the
On 5/23/2006 9:42 PM, Chan, Wilson wrote:
Anyone know of any good custom SA filters? Im already using SARE with
Rules dejour. Are there any other good custom filters online? Thanks!
Are you looking to catch a particular type of spam? Most people with an
up-to-date SpamAssassin version and a
On 5/22/2006 12:16 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:54 PM -0700 jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at your own email it comes from a COMCAST cable connection
in Palmer Ranch Florida through the WFGB mailer. The WFGB mailer is
not in SORBS anywhere. YOUR address most
On 5/22/2006 8:09 PM, nxxs wrote:
The only problem is that I cannot receive mails above a certain size
(usually mails with attachments). They simply dont get delivered.
I can read the following error message in my syslog:
qmail: 1148341842.937112 starting delivery 79: msg 61161737 to local
On 5/22/2006 6:14 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
As it turns out, I had a SARE rule installed that should catch these,
but I found some spams leaking through due to the insecure dependency
bug (bug 3838), even though I'm running Perl 5.8.3. I'm applying Daryl
C. W. O'Shea's patch for that bug.
On 5/20/2006 11:44 PM, WFGB Team wrote:
[My Replies]
A) Since I am unsure what MSA is I did some checking up. How do I know
if I am set up for MSA?
I am using Smartermail. I am equally unsure of what MTA is. I know
what the MX Records are sort of.
Looking at the headers of the email you
On 5/21/2006 12:30 AM, spectacularstuff wrote:
Hi Daryl,
I put the trusted networks in and that seem to get rid of a few things but
now it brought out 4 or 5 others... lol
I understand what the following is. I just don't know how to fix it. Do
you know how to fix this issue?
3.2
The Help Guy wrote:
hello all:
You've been very helpful in the past, so let me say thank you to start.
Im currently using SA 3.1.0 on Linux with procmail.
I have a problem that is pretty much exactly described in this bug report:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4410
Christian Reiter wrote:
Hi!
I have a problem with my Spamassassin 3.1.1 installation here.
I have Postfix as MTA and Amavids-new 2.3.3
The Rule RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL matches also the first hop of the
received Headers. If i understand correctly the first hop should
not be matched as a user could
On 5/10/2006 3:13 PM, David Baron wrote:
2. Fails after several time outs with:
http: request failed: 500 read timeout: 500 read timeout
error: no mirror data available for channel updates.spamassassin.org
channel: MIRRORED.BY contents were missing, channel failed
This can occur if you've got
On 5/9/2006 2:16 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
There's some difference of opinion around this question, but my general
opinion is that there should be an update to spamass-milter which
properly handles the newlines either way. I'm not sure whether or not
that's happened yet.
As discussed in
Jason Haar wrote:
I guess a more generic question would be: how do sites handle calling SA
for validated-but-remote local users? Qmail-Scanner defaults to *not*
calling SA - is that what most others do too?
If not, how do you handle the fact those users are (by definition) going
to be on DUL
Richard Collyer wrote:
I have done some dig requests using the hosts in the debug file and they
are getting returned ok. Strange thing is that sometimes 18 or 38 pass,
sometimes 25 of 38 pass there seems to be no pattern to them failing.
There is a firewall running (nothing that would stop
Richard Collyer wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to track down why is is tracking so long for mails to be
scanned via FreeBSD.
I am scanning then using qmail-scanner (1.25).
From what I can see the problem is coming from when e-mails are
arriving from external sources. The top log entry shows
Richard Collyer wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
[31974] dbg: dns: name server: 192.168.1.1, family: 2, ipv6: 0
[31974] dbg: dns: testing resolver nameservers: 192.168.1.1
[31974] dbg: dns: trying (3) google.com...
[31974] dbg: dns: looking up NS for 'google.com'
[31974] dbg: dns: NS lookup
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not making
any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the debug output of a message being scanned, you'll
see exactly where it's slow.
spamassassin -D
Julian Underwood wrote:
Dear List,
I was curious how organizations typically score mail which comes from
their own domain(s). Obviously spammers will spoof the source domain in
hopes that you have whitelisted your domain or give special treatment
from mail originating from within your own org.
Andrew Doughety wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems
that the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from
X-Originating and X-Apparently-From headers. Grepping through
Richard Collyer wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not
making any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the debug output of a message being scanned, you'll
see
Rob Tanner wrote:
Hi,
I installed spamassassin on my server a week ago and along with a number
of Postfix settings, I'm nearly 100% spam free (I might get one spam a
day now). But one thing I haven't figured out. I would like not to
check mail originating in my address space. Is that a
Mark Martinec wrote:
The most interesting part in my view is not the IP distance, but the
type of OS, illustrated by the following table (derived from the same
data as fig2):
p0f OS guessham : spam
-
Windows-XP0.7 % : 99.3 %
Windows-2000
Mark Martinec wrote:
I guess Windows Server 2003 is reported as Windows 2000, but I don't know.
Certainly a couple of very large sites are seen as Windows 2000.
In the UNKNOWN category there must be a mix of Windows and Unix hosts,
not sure what is unusual about them.
Mark
Hmm... FWIW:
Justin Mason wrote:
http://ajax.apache.org/%7ejefft/ :
Bugzilla is moving to a new host, and is temporarily down while the
database synchs. Apologies for the inconvenience.
--j.
Yay, it doesn't seem excruciatingly slow anymore.
Forrest Aldrich wrote:
I've been having some difficulty with the user_prefs and the whitelist_*
fucntions. I read the examples etc, and I believe these are correct,
but clearly certain email is still being tagged (see below). I wonder
if someone can help clarify what I'm doing wrong here.
Screaming Eagle wrote:
All,
Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
pts rule name description
--
--
-1.8 ALL_TRUSTEDPassed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
1.1
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
(Translation: management material)
I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message
back telling them to turn on the
Philip Prindeville wrote:
litre, and if I'm feeling really silly, aluminium (I hate that word).
Aluminium rocks! Especially aluminium foil and aluminium airplanes.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received headers
being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
Well, for a start, normally the
Dave Stern wrote:
As to the format spamc -d 1.2.3.4,10 2.3.4.5,10
That was from a google search. I believe that allows you to specify
timeouts
per host rather than a more universal -t.
I'm not aware of that being valid.
In any case, anything beyond a single host would either not fail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tristan Miller wrote:
debug: is DNS available? 0
What is the output of
$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
?
It's likely that spamd is being called with -L. If on a RedHat/Fedora
system, it'll be set in /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin.
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Mar 30 21:52:14 quark spamd[45835]: __alarm__
Mar 30 21:52:14 quark spamd[45835]: __alarm__
Mar 30 21:52:14 quark spamd[45835]: spamd: copy_config timeout (with
empty
(copying Justin since this has to do with pre-forking)
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 3/10/2006 11:22 AM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Okay,
I'm still getting these issues. I've corrected every other issue that's
plagued us
Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 07:36:18PM +0100, Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
Which ports and protocols does this use for the connections in and out?
It does a few DNS queries, and grabs files via HTTP.
I'm getting the
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I think it's actually load related... spamd is timing out the
copy_config sooner than it's really taking under high load. If you
were to change the alarm value from 10 to 100 or so, around spamd line
949
Dale Blount wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 08:18:35PM -0800, Dan Kohn wrote:
Anything else to try?
Nothing comes to mind. It looks like a bug in IO::Zlib or perl on
your platform.
Anyone else on FreeBSD having simliar problems?
I'm having this problem on Arch Linux with IO::Zlib 1.0.4.
Stephan Menzel wrote:
Hi there,
I'm currently about to customize a local (gentoo~) 3.1 installation to our
specific needs.
One of the first steps there was a special regex to catch our very own
Received: headers
To check if this works I modified some other SA code parts and enabled debug
Michael Monnerie wrote:
Anybody else got this problem? Lots of warnings suddenly.
mfg zmi
[31721] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping:
whitelist_from_spf[EMAIL PROTECTED] [31721] warn: config:
failed to parse line, skipping: whitelist_from_spf
Is the SPF plugin enabled?
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Freitag, 24. März 2006 09:01 Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Is the SPF plugin enabled? The syntax looks fine, but it can't be
parsed if the plugin isn't loaded.
ARghl. I should not work late night... Thanks.
As I use SPF on MTA level, I wanted to disable SPF. So I have
Jim Maul wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
My question is, with this setup, what trusted_networks should i have
defined?
You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
trusted_networks 192.168.128.4
trusted_networks 69.27.243.222
I see that 167.206.112.76 (mx1.lightpath.net) also
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You might as well through in trusted_networks 127.0.0.1
... that's not hardcoded?
When automatically set, yes. When you manually define your
trusted/internal networks, no -- you really get to define them.
David Lee wrote:
If, conversely, it is not in breach, then SA has a problem: it shouldn't
be marking it INVALID_DATE. Incidentally, it is this aspect (rather
than any other) of the date that is triggering this SA rule, isn't it?
I guess we could fix it by renaming the rule
Jeferson Pessoa Santana wrote:
Does anyone have the link of this Domain Keys patch for the version
3.1.0? Doing a Google Search I found some information about this patch
but any file or text to create the file.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4623
Note that it is only
701 - 800 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
