> >On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 06:40 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my
> >> importation of that key. Several times.
On 18.08.09 21:49, Gene Heskett wrote:
...
> [25964] dbg: gpg: key id 6C6191E3 is not release trusted
> error: GPG validatio
> Bob Proulx a écrit :
> > The following header line:
> >
> > Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
> > [96.254.126.11] by
> > windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
> >
> > Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
> >
Hi All,
Having a problem with my SA setup. I'm using amavisd and Postfix. For some
reason I get the following occasionally
Aug 19 15:37:20.176 ceg.caznet.com.au /usr/sbin/amavisd[5]: (5-01-6)
SA dbg: bayes: database connection established
Aug 19 15:37:20.177 ceg.caznet.com.au /usr/
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if this is a client of yours, you might help them get a VALID RDNS and
> setup the FQDN for their mail server.
> (more likely, its a zombie spambot anyway, )
Not related to me in any way. The mail message generated from there
was legitimate. It came *to* a client of
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 01:06 +0200, mouss wrote:
...
> in short, whatever jeff says, spamhaus is the one. the fundamental
> concept is not "how many spam it blocks", but "how much do I trust it".
>
Exactly!
On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 06:40 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my
>> importation of that key. Several times.
>>
>> How should I proceed?
>
>General advice: Post the error messages. Do a
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 19:09 -0400, Dave wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a CentOS
> 5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being called from
> amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
> I don't want my outgoing emails
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Dave wrote:
Hello,
I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a
CentOS 5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being
called from amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
I don't want my outgoing emails scanned, i read spamassassin
Hello,
I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a CentOS
5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being called from
amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
I don't want my outgoing emails scanned, i read spamassassin can be
configured by not
Marc Perkel a écrit :
> http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
>
> It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
> overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
> the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably good to me. I
> don't really count
Bob Proulx a écrit :
> The following header line:
>
> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [96.254.126.11]
> by
> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>
> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
>
> $ perl -le 'if
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 06:40 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my importation
> of that key. Several times.
>
> How should I proceed?
General advice: Post the error messages. Do a debug run. Post the
relevant parts of the debug info.
Gene
On 18-Aug-2009, at 14:22, Mike Cappella wrote:
Error Flynn
this made me laugh, thanks.
--
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as
the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
[ off topic ]
On 8/18/2009 1:00 PM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Apart from not understanding "flynn", I think I get what you want to
An famous old saying, in reference to Error Flynn [1], the
swashbuckling, Aussie-American actor, meaning "everyhing is OK" [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erro
Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> I'm open to ideas about what else to do.
For me, the Sought rules catch more than anything other than the Zen
blacklist.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules
--
Bowie
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 20:02 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
> > On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> Question - in Postfix do "user unknown" rejections still incur a dns
> >> RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
> >
> >
> > HELO/EHLO rejections
Hi,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 12:06:30 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Toni Mueller wrote:
>> Understood. FWIW, (not only) I need newer rules because the current
>> rules are becoming ineffective at a fast pace.
>> Of course, but what do you want to say with that? From my experience
>> running Spa
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi Ted,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 11:06:32 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
you will find that
sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
update release for 3.2
795855 -is- the latest rules release
LuKreme wrote:
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do "user unknown" rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach RBL, and neither do unknown, as long
as you specify the right or
Hi Ted,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 11:06:32 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
> you will find that
>
> sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
> update release for 3.2
>
> 795855 -is- the latest rules release for 3.2.5
o
Hi Toni,
If you go to here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
(web interface for the source repository)
you will find that
sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
update release for 3.2
795855 -is- the latest rules release for 3.2.5
If you wa
Hi,
I notice that there are no rules updates for 3.2.5 since about
2009-07-21, with the latest version shipped being 795855. FWIW, I
queried different DNS servers in different networks to forestall stale
DNS cache data for the number, but uniformly got this result.
The "daily QA testing pages",
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:51:46 +0200
Per Jessen wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> > addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> > assigned?
>
> Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> > addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> > assigned?
On 18.08.09 16:51, Per Jessen wrote:
> Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
there is
hi all!
i'm trying to use spamassassin with SQL. when i start "spamd -D -q" i
obtain: (spamassassin 3.2.5)
[3492] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all
[3492] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG
[3492] dbg: logger: trying to connect to syslog/unix...
[3492] dbg: logger: opening syslog with unix so
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> assigned?
Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
> Of course it's much better to have personalised DNS n
On 17-Aug-2009, at 06:38, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Nope. Only one query to the local spamhaus zone is performed:
http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#hangup
Oooo, NICE. I'm implementing that right now.
--
Lister: What d'ya think of Betty? Cat: Betty Rubble? Well, I would
go
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do "user unknown" rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach RBL, and neither do unknown, as long
as you specify the right order in the smt
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> The following header line:
>>
>> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
>> [96.254.126.11] by
>> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>>
>> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
>>
>> $ perl -l
Greetings;
One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my importation
of that key. Several times.
How should I proceed?
Thanks.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt
On 17.08.09 20:33, Matt Kettler wrote:
> You can also set your min_cf in your razor config files, which will
> affect when the RAZOR2_CHECK rule fires. This does work in SpamAssassin,
> as I have over-ridden the min_cf on my own system, and have done so for
> years.
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 09:52
> Charles Gregory wrote:
> > When you compare the hits on a message, is there any difference in BAYES?
On 17.08.09 12:23, Kristina wrote:
> Unfortunately, no: in fact, Bayes was often the only thing that was
> hitting in 3.2.5.
This may be the problem. Are the rule directories accessible/readable
Bob Proulx wrote:
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
[96.254.126.11] by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if ("static-96-254-12
RW wrote:
I couldn't find a single serious link about this on Google, just further
oddball bloggers and forum posters, many of whom admitted that they had
previously emailed the Whitehouse.
how about cbs news? and if this is a non event, why did the whitehouse
make policy changes to preven
34 matches
Mail list logo