John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, aag_uk wrote:
(1) Check your MTA options. Some allow you to configure rejection of a
message after X number of invalid recipients are given.
(2) Consider a rule that adds a point if more than X names appear in
the TO: and/or CC: headers.
..that seems new. I see it's an RBL that contains domains registered
within the last five days.
Can someone explain what that means? I guess it means seen by DOB
within the last five days more than a domain that was registered within
the last five days?
I say that because email from my home
a) is probably going to be quite resource-intensive;
I don´t really know, according to
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=12207486framed=y
sm-7 say that it shouldn´t be
b) requires LDAP, NIS, etc., so that SpamAssassin can have a clue
about your accounts;
c) requires competent
Can rules like whitelist_from_spf and def_whitelist_from_spf be
shortcircuited
How do I set priorities for such rules
Thanks
Ram
I've used custom rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf since v3.1.7 with
never a problem. Since upgrading to v3.2.3, it's as if SpamAssassin isn't
seeing/registering the same rules that have always worked.
I'm running SpamAssassin on CentOS 4.5, with cPanel and through a
MailScanner package,
Quoting Jason Haar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
..that seems new. I see it's an RBL that contains domains registered
within the last five days.
Can someone explain what that means? I guess it means seen by DOB
within the last five days more than a domain that was registered within
the last five days?
I had some problems with my email server and seems my email was rejected so
here I go posting again, hopefully the problem is now solved and people will
receive this message.
--
View this message in context:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Quoting Jason Haar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Can someone explain what that means? I guess it means seen by DOB
within the last five days more than a domain that was registered within
the last five days?
It means the domain was registered within the past 5 days.
Well
Please provide the complete output of spamassassin --lint -D
On 8/18/2007 3:02 AM, MaraBlue wrote:
I've used custom rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf since v3.1.7 with
never a problem. Since upgrading to v3.2.3, it's as if SpamAssassin isn't
seeing/registering the same rules that have
On 8/18/2007 2:58 AM, ram wrote:
Can rules like whitelist_from_spf and def_whitelist_from_spf be
shortcircuited
How do I set priorities for such rules
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ShortcircuitingRuleset
Quoting Jason Haar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've spotted the fault - they've blacklisted the *ENTIRE* .org
domain!!! (I just tested some made-up .org domains - they are all on it)
I'll see if I can find an email address to notify them
Arghhh, that would do it. I'm writing to Rick Wesson about it.
Chickenpox is one of the custom rulesets referenced on the SA WIKI:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets
BTW, does anyone know if the chickenpox ruleset still has problems with
accented text?
I haven't been using chickenpox.cf due to our large mail inflow for our
EU
On 18 Aug 2007, Robert Fitzpatrick spake thusly:
On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 15:14 +0100, Nix wrote:
On 17 Aug 2007, Robert Fitzpatrick verbalised:
Worms and spam have made it impossible for users to use their own
personal mail servers.
Really? Fascinating, I'm doing the impossible. I had no
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:02:16 -0700 (PDT):
there several versions back.
I've run --lint -D, and SA is reading local.cf (I can post the log if
needed). The only other thing I changed a few days before this started
was
switching from using
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Please provide the complete output of spamassassin --lint -D
Happy to:
Log from 72.9.251.53 started August 17, 2007, 23:22:08
spamassassin --lint -D
[24276] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all
[24276] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG
At 08:11 AM 8/18/2007, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Botnet is designed to
combat you.
Along with several black lists. Two of the lists we use do there
best to block dynamic servers.
Note, we are on a dynamic address, but send through our ISPs server
with AUTH. If we had any trouble with
spamd: bad protocol: header error: (closed before headers) at
/usr/bin/spamd line 1985.
What would cause this? Thanks in advance.
Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 8/16/2007 12:39 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
OK - it's interesting that of all of you who responded this is the only
person who is doing it right. I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised
that so few people are preprocessing their email to reduce the SA load.
As we all
I have what I call a yellow list which is a list of IP addresses of
hosts like yahoo, google, hotmail, aol, etc that send a mix of spam and
nonspam. The idea being that if you are yellow listed then don't check
any other list because if it was listed it would be a false positive.
So - the
Nix wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:14:53 +0100:
Worms and spam have made it impossible for users to use their own
personal mail servers.
Really? Fascinating, I'm doing the impossible. I had no idea.
You should not read that literally. You can, of course do that. But many
providers will not
Aag_uk wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:33:49 -0700 (PDT):
it´s quite unlikely that somebody tags any of
my users
as I said it may work for you, it will not work for the majority of SA
users. The whole effort and the FPs would not be worth it. If you don't
believe that, start coding.
Kai
--
MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT):
I know it's ignoring the rules in local.cf because of the spam that's
getting through. Some time back I changed EXTRA_MPART_TYPE to 4.0. Since
upgrading to v3.2.3 spam is getting tagged at the default 2.0 for that rule.
Nothing has
Nix wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:35:20 +0100:
Competent ISPs give you rDNS. (Really good ones delegate your rDNS to
you.)
So, your ISP is not competent? How would they give specific rDNS to
dynamic IP addresses, anyway?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
Alberto, your reasoning is correct, based on my experience of actually
implementing and using such a system, albeit in a small scale environment.
As sm points out, it is particularly useful as a pass rule for exact
matches to your users' actual email client real names.
I've implemented this as
I have a few blacklists that I trust but one thing I do is that I have
a big white list of good hosts that let me route more than half og my
good email around SA which reduces load and increases accuracy.br
Hi Mark,
would a good host be one that uses egress spam filtering?
Even companies with
Kai Schätzl wrote:
You don't understand at all. What gets put in the comment is up to the
sender.
They can put *everything* there and it's legit. You do not control it at all
and you do not send them a reply please change my name in your addressbook
to
xyz. It can be the name, a part
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT):
I know it's ignoring the rules in local.cf because of the spam that's
getting through. Some time back I changed EXTRA_MPART_TYPE to 4.0. Since
upgrading to v3.2.3 spam is getting tagged at the default 2.0 for
Just take away the scores for the individual RBLs, and your yellow
list as another RBL, and use metarules to score.
-Aaron
On 8/18/07, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have what I call a yellow list which is a list of IP addresses of
hosts like yahoo, google, hotmail, aol, etc that
MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:46:34 -0700 (PDT):
If you can't be helpful, I can certainly understand. But I don't need an
argument, nor your attitude.
Thank you. It's not my fault that you don't understand the reasoning behind my
hints. You could have just done what I proposed instead
I have *always* run SA through MailScanner. This configuration is not new,
I
have run it this way for *years*. The only thing that's new is the version
of SA. As soon as I upgraded to v3.2.3, the problems started.
If you can't be helpful, I can certainly understand. But I don't need an
Nix wrote:
On 17 Aug 2007, Jerry Durand told this:
Why do they need a personal mail server?
Well, I use my own MTA because I've had repeated problems with ISP MTAs
losing my mail, corrupting it, going down at inconvenient moments (like
Friday evening to come back up only on Monday). It's a
Robert - elists-2 wrote:
I have *always* run SA through MailScanner. This configuration is not
new,
I
have run it this way for *years*. The only thing that's new is the
version
of SA. As soon as I upgraded to v3.2.3, the problems started.
If you can't be helpful, I can certainly
I am seeing e-mail getting points for being 3-6 hrs in future While it
looks like this is a result of improperly set system time on the sending
MTA, I wanted to bounce this off someone to make sure this is not a
spamassassin issue.
With respect to a recent e-mail (headers below):
Time
I've read this list for a long time. I've seen some really, truly STUPID
questions come through...and seen them be answered, civilly, helpfully.
The
only difference is I don't have a masculine username. I truly hate coming
off as a cranky feminist who complains I am being treated unfairly
In my version 3.2.3 SA; File: 50_scores.cf sets the
score for EXTRA_MPART_TYPE fixed to a value of 1
(per Bug 5110).
Sounds like a bad upgrade or platform package
build as the libraries don't appear to be matching
the version of SA?
I suspect that other stuff is not working right also.
Loren Wilton wrote:
From: Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the only thing which is actually working to catch these is bayes
and bayes-based systems. Not rules, and not AV.
Is that a statement about your own system? MANY people have responded
that quite a number of other things like pdfinfo
On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 19:26 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
From: Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the only thing which is actually working to catch these is bayes
and bayes-based systems. Not rules, and not AV.
Is that a statement about your own system? MANY people have
I have a FreeBSD machine running qmail, SpamAssassin and ClamAV. The machine
is receiving 200,000 e-mail messages per day, courtesy of Rumpelstiltskin
attacks from thousands of different IP addresses each day, and SpamAssassin
appears to be overwhelmed. I have about 50,000 e-mail messages in
38 matches
Mail list logo
