On Dec 12, 2007 5:05 AM, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 1:09 AM, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
What causes this?
reporter: razor2 report failed: No such file or directory report
requires authentication
You
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Hearn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:04 PM
Hi,
Can anyone explain why this email:
http://pastebin.ca/811938
is getting a hit on HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP.
I'm seeing a few ham message being
Michael Grant wrote:
-report?
Ahh, I had to do a razor-admin like this:
su - root
# razor-admin -create
# razor-admin -register
Even though I had done this initially as just 'su', it was using my
homedir to create the .razor directory.
Yep. Technically you only needed the -,
Matt Kettler wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
-report?
Ahh, I had to do a razor-admin like this:
su - root
# razor-admin -create
# razor-admin -register
Even though I had done this initially as just 'su', it was using my
homedir to create the .razor directory.
Yep.
Joshua Sindy
Unix / Windows Systems Administrator
Empower Information Systems
www.empoweris.com
Gtalk: joshuasindy
757-273-9399 (office)
757-715-3534 (cell)
866-477-1544 (toll free)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (email)
Quoth Per Jessen: 'It would perhaps make sense not to scan internal email.
We certainly
don't.'
We were concerned about scans sent to people outside the organization.
russell bell
--
View this message in context:
sorry for posting again a question regarding the same topic, but I think
I found out more in the meantime and can ask a better question.
I've a user [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following entries in my
autowhitelist:
20.0(40.0/2) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|ip=222.253
24.2
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.3 and have been advised to increase the
score for URIBL_SBL to 5.0. I see where it is defined in 50_scores.cf,
but I don't completely understand the format.
Mine shows:
score URIBL_SBL 0 2.468 0 1.499 # n=0 n=2
Is the last score (1.499) the one I should increase?
Anyone seen these? text/plain and HTML parts, seem to have same content,
saying there's a virus, please delete, and some gibberish. I'm guessing
it's some kind of probe.
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Anyone seen these? text/plain and HTML parts, seem to have same
content, saying there's a virus, please delete, and some gibberish.
I'm guessing it's some kind of probe.
There was a web address hidden by a malformed CSS tag.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, peter pilsl wrote:
How is this AWL-scoring calculated? It seems almost broken to me.
The name is very misleading. If you think of it as a historical score
averaging system instead, with the goal of allowing a typically-hammy
sender to occasionally send a spammy message, and
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Ken Morley wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.3 and have been advised to increase
the score for URIBL_SBL to 5.0. I see where it is defined in
50_scores.cf, but I don't completely understand the format.
Don't change the distribution files. Alter scores in a local.cf
John D. Hardin wrote:
peter pilsl wrote:
I need to turn off AWL by now.
Most people do... :)
The problem is that it is based upon the from address. That is an
unreliable piece of data. Spammers forge from addresses all of the
time. Even valid senders will sometimes fabricate from
On Thursday 13 December 2007 02:07:00 Bob Proulx wrote:
The problem is that it is based upon the from address. That is an
unreliable piece of data. Spammers forge from addresses all of the
time. Even valid senders will sometimes fabricate from addresses. If
the input to the equation can't
peter pilsl wrote:
sorry for posting again a question regarding the same topic, but I think
I found out more in the meantime and can ask a better question.
I've a user [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following entries in my
autowhitelist:
20.0(40.0/2) -- [EMAIL
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:20 PM -0800 Kenneth Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone seen these? text/plain and HTML parts, seem to have same content,
saying there's a virus, please delete, and some gibberish. I'm guessing
it's some kind of probe.
Started today (based on
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:20 PM -0800 Kenneth Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone seen these? text/plain and HTML parts, seem to have same content,
saying there's a virus, please delete, and some gibberish. I'm guessing
it's some kind of probe.
Started today (based on reports
17 matches
Mail list logo