On 06.10.07 11:51, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
And this did
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My problem is: blocklists come and go, and some
I'm getting this stuff from named in my log files during message scanning.
Oct 8 14:36:40 ns2 named[6541]: unexpected RCODE (SERVFAIL)
resolving '.xxx.blackhole.securitysage.com/A/IN': a.b.c.d#53
Oct 8 14:36:40 ns2 named[6541]: unexpected RCODE (SERVFAIL)
resolving
mouss wrote:
Wouldn't this be reinventing /etc/hosts?
No.
The hosts file contained all individual *hosts* a machine needed
to know about, and still contains all hosts a machine needs to
know about without using the DNS.
This database would contain all *domains* that has been used in mail.
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:40 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I'm getting this stuff from named in my log files during message scanning.
Oct 8 14:36:40 ns2 named[6541]: unexpected RCODE (SERVFAIL)
resolving '.xxx.blackhole.securitysage.com/A/IN': a.b.c.d#53
Oct 8 14:36:40
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:30 PM
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:40 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I'm getting this stuff from named in my log files during message
scanning.
Oct 8 14:36:40 ns2 named[6541]:
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:30 PM
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:40 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I'm getting this stuff from named in my log files during message
scanning.
Oct 8
* Giampaolo Tomassoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071008 08:47]:
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:30 PM
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:40 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I'm getting this stuff from named in my log files during message
-Original Message-
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:30 PM
Well, it may be, but I believe it is not more than a week I'm getting
these
log entries.
This is right, these error only started showing up last week in the
logcheck logs
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original Message-
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:30 PM
Well, it may be, but I believe it is not more than a week I'm getting
these
log entries.
This is right, these error only started
Their (his?) official site www.securitysage.com doesn't even report an
e-mail address.
Should I go to risk my mailbox blacklisted by BLs? :) Or someone of us
got a
better securitysage's contact e-mail?
I don't, anyway. go for it ;)
Doing a whois shows a network solutions email
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:00 PM
Should I go to risk my mailbox blacklisted by BLs? :) Or someone of
us got a
better securitysage's contact e-mail?
I don't, anyway. go for it ;)
Ok, right now I've
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My problem is: blocklists come and go, and some blocklists, when they
go, do things like hang up because they're being flooded, thus slowing
my mail processes or flag all mail as spam or hand out stale data
that
hasn't changed at all in
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
Therefore, I recommend that you re-think your choices here! Don't let your
quest for guaranteed long-term perfection keep you from making
**substantial** progress today!
Rob,
Then help rally the SA team to include those RBLs that you mentioned in
the
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:30 PM
Well, it may be, but I believe it is not more than a week I'm getting
these
log entries.
This is right, these error only
-Original Message-
From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:35 PM
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:30 PM
Well, it may be, but I believe it
I see in another thread a discussion about what people want to see in SA
RBL support. I thought I'd throw in my $.02.
I want a non-binary setting for use RBLs or not.
The all or nothing approach that has been used, where you set it to
use RBLs or skip them, and then you have to track down
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
Therefore, I recommend that you re-think your choices here! Don't let
your quest for guaranteed long-term perfection keep you from making
**substantial** progress today!
Rob,
Then help rally the SA team to include
Hi, I have two spamassassin installed, one SUSE 10.1 and another redhat 9 .
Suse has sa 3.1.3 and redhat has sa 3.1.4
With suse the sample-spam.txt scores to 12, and with redhat scores to 1000,
any idea why?, the SUSE installation is on production and running all right,
redhat is not, As it is
Fernando Gutierrez wrote:
Hi, I have two spamassassin installed, one SUSE 10.1 and another redhat 9 .
Suse has sa 3.1.3 and redhat has sa 3.1.4
With suse the sample-spam.txt scores to 12, and with redhat scores to 1000,
any idea why?, the SUSE installation is on production and running all
Dan,
Then help rally the SA team to include those RBLs
that you mentioned in the stock config.
My RBL (ivmSIP.com) wouldn't work as a default value in SA because it is
only available via RSYNC or Zone Transfer to subscribers (or...
currently... testers who have specifically requested access).
-Original Message-
From: Dan Mahoney, System Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2007 7:14 AM
To: Rob McEwen
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [sa-list] Re: Auto-RBL was: Why did this not hit more? (SPF,
DKIM, Ironport,
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Rob
23 matches
Mail list logo