Hi
I have a curios message in my Spamassassin-Logfile since at least three
days:
Fri Mar 5 08:08:11 2010 [4958] info: rules: meta test EASY_URL has
dependency 'SPOOF_NET2COM' with a zero score
Fri Mar 5 08:08:11 2010 [4958] info: rules: meta test HARD_URL has
dependency 'HTTPS_IP_MISMATCH'
Agreed, he's clearly unaware of
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6271
Anyone care to craft a response? I think we should. bonus points for
including the obligatory comp.risks tagline:
The RISK? Jumping to an invalid conclusion based on incomplete research.
;)
--j.
Luigi,
marvin% perl -le 'use IO::Socket::INET6; print IO::Socket::INET6-VERSION'
2.57
Good.
Try capturing your traffic on a loopback interface for port 53:
This is the output with -vv for protocol decode with my recursive
local DNS on 127.0.0.1 and my authorative DNS on listening on
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:41:38 -0500 (EST)
James Smallacombe u...@3.am wrote:
Installing from ports automatically installs perl
5.10.1 which causes spamc children to run wild and basically, spamd
can't cope with it.
I don't need or want perl 5.bleeding.edge, 5.8.9 was working
Forgot option -n, makes it unknown whether 'localhost' is 127.0.0.1 or ::1.
13:57:40.287618 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 30469, offset 0, flags [none],
proto UDP (17), length 66, bad cksum 0 (-5a4)!)
127.0.0.1.36192 127.0.0.1.53: [udp sum ok] 45090+ A?
marvin.luigilauro.it. (38)
13:57:40.287817
Hi
i have a small problems for connect Spamassassin 3.3.0 to my sql server:
my local.cf:
use_bayes 1
bayes_auto_expire 0
bayes_auto_learn1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 0.1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 9.0
bayes_store_module
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephane MAGAND wrote:
mars 5 14:56:25.675 [13260] dbg: bayes: using username: root
This is not the mysql authentication username, this is talking about the
system username used to submit the request, and stored along with the
bayes tokens.
mars
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, RW wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:41:38 -0500 (EST)
James Smallacombe u...@3.am wrote:
Installing from ports automatically installs perl
5.10.1 which causes spamc children to run wild and basically, spamd
can't cope with it.
I don't need or want perl
Hi
ok i have put
bayes_sql_override_username
and now that's work thanks ;=)
Another small question, after bayes, can i put AWL in MySQL ?
bye
stephane
2010/3/5 David Morton morto...@dgrmm.net:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephane MAGAND wrote:
mars 5 14:56:25.675
On 3/4/10 11:41 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer one
from FreeBSD Ports. It seems that at least the Ports version thinks
that the latest SA requires perl 5.10.x, rather than 5.8.9, which I
was already using. Installing from
I noticed someone sent me an email and there are no SA heading info in
the message. SA didn't provide a score or status on the message
headers for some weird reason. I then checked my mail logs and saw
this message:
Mar 5 08:52:18 mail spamc[2635]: skipped message, greater than max
message size
Luigi,
127.0.0.1.53 127.0.0.1.15896: [udp sum ok] 12915 q: ?
0.0.0.0.luigilauro.it. 1/0/0 0.0.0.0.luigilauro.it.
2002:4e2e:3890::1 (67)
127.0.0.1.53 127.0.0.1.24312: [udp sum ok] 12919 q: ?
127.0.0.1.luigilauro.it. 1/0/0 127.0.0.1.luigilauro.it.
myself wrote:
- contact the maintainer of IO::Socket::INET6 and sort out the problem;
- avoid mapping 127.0.0.1 query into an IPv6 address of your
nonrecursive DNS server.
(preferably both).
Actually there are more options:
- allow your IPv6 DNS server to answer recursive queries from
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:42 -0500, Carlos Mennens wrote:
I noticed someone sent me an email and there are no SA heading info in
the message. SA didn't provide a score or status on the message
headers for some weird reason. I then checked my mail logs and saw
this message:
Mar 5 08:52:18
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with an elusive spam for the past few days with
just re in the subject. It looks to be routed through hotmail.com,
but doesn't have an SPF signature, so I don't really understand.
Here's an example:
http://pastebin.com/Lg63Xek4
I've trained probably 50 of these, yet
Carlos Mennens wrote:
I noticed someone sent me an email and there are no SA heading info in
the message. SA didn't provide a score or status on the message
headers for some weird reason. I then checked my mail logs and saw
this message:
Mar 5 08:52:18 mail spamc[2635]: skipped message,
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:41 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2010-03-04 15:13, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On a related note, the plain whitelist_from without a rcvd or auth
constraint is dangerous to use. If possible, always use the constraint
ones, and the plain one strictly as a fall-back if
On 5.3.2010 17:23, Stephane MAGAND wrote:
Hi
ok i have put
bayes_sql_override_username
and now that's work thanks ;=)
Another small question, after bayes, can i put AWL in MySQL ?
Yes you can, it's all in the doku or wiki. Anyway:
--- local.cf --
# Enable awl
On 2010-03-05 10:14, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:41 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2010-03-04 15:13, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
[snip]
How is SA called?
(Lines manually continued for easy reading.)
# grep spam /etc/postfix/master.cf
smtp inet n - n -
Justin Mason さんは書きました:
Agreed, he's clearly unaware of
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6271
Anyone care to craft a response? I think we should. bonus points for
including the obligatory comp.risks tagline:
The RISK? Jumping to an invalid conclusion based on
Alex wrote on Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:02:35 -0500:
I've trained probably 50 of these, yet they still have BAYES_50.
I trained your example and it went from 50 to 99. With *1* message!
There may be something wrong with your Bayes. With 400.000 tokens in the
db.
Why did you replace the @? And please
On 2010-03-04 15:41, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2010-03-04 15:13, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
[snip]
How is SA called?
(Lines manually continued for easy reading.)
# grep spam /etc/postfix/master.cf
smtp inet n - n - - \
smtpd -o content_filter=spamfilter:
Ron Johnson wrote:
My wife and I don't need to white-list the same people.
But if it simplifies the configuration, is there any harm in having
everything on a global whitelist? How often are you likely to receive
spam from someone your wife wanted whitelisted?
--
Bowie
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:19 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2010-03-05 10:14, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I'd suggest to do it right from the beginning. That is, exclusively use
the constraint rcvd or auth whitelisting variants. Also, is there any
valid reason you need this to be per-user? As
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:41 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2010-03-04 15:41, Ron Johnson wrote:
spamfilter unix - n n - - pipe flags=Rq user=spamfilter \
argv=/usr/local/bin/spamfilter.sh \
-f ${sender} -- ${recipient}
Definitely looks like SA isn't
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, RW wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:21:28 -0500 (EST)
James Smallacombe u...@3.am wrote:
I actually meant spamc's that had no spamd children to talk to. It
seems the ports version of SA replaced my original sa-spamd startup
script, which raised the max children from
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer one
from FreeBSD Ports.
Really? I just did a update of the port tree and yet
$ portversion p5-Mail-SpamAssassin
p5-Mail-SpamAssassin=
$
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, LuKreme wrote:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer one
from FreeBSD Ports.
Really? I just did a update of the port tree and yet
$ portversion p5-Mail-SpamAssassin
p5-Mail-SpamAssassin=
$
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:45:57 -0700
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer
one from FreeBSD Ports.
system SA has not updated in ports to 3.3.0 yet
It's been in ports for about a
Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with an elusive spam for the past few days with
just re in the subject. It looks to be routed through hotmail.com,
but doesn't have an SPF signature, so I don't really understand.
SPF doesn't sign anything (perhaps you are thinking of dkim), and
anyway,
Justin Mason wrote:
Anyone care to craft a response? I think we should. bonus points for
including the obligatory comp.risks tagline
I submitted a reply right after the RISKS Digest issue came out. The issue
after that indicated that there was a backlog of submissions to RISKS, so
maybe
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:02:35AM -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with an elusive spam for the past few days with
just re in the subject. It looks to be routed through hotmail.com,
but doesn't have an SPF signature, so I don't really understand.
Here's an example:
On 2010-03-05 14:51, Henrik K wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:02:35AM -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with an elusive spam for the past few days with
just re in the subject. It looks to be routed through hotmail.com,
but doesn't have an SPF signature, so I don't really
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:24 +0100, Hans-Werner Friedemann wrote:
I have a curios message in my Spamassassin-Logfile since at least
three days:
Fri Mar 5 08:08:11 2010 [4958] info: rules: meta test EASY_URL has
dependency 'SPOOF_NET2COM' with a zero score
Fri Mar 5 08:08:11 2010 [4958]
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:39:25 +0100
Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Alex wrote on Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:02:35 -0500:
I've trained probably 50 of these, yet they still have BAYES_50.
I trained your example and it went from 50 to 99. With *1* message!
There may be something wrong
On 05-Mar-10 12:03, James Smallacombe wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, LuKreme wrote:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer one
from FreeBSD Ports.
Really? I just did a update of the port tree and yet
$ portversion
On 05-Mar-10 12:27, RW wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:45:57 -0700
LuKremekrem...@kreme.com wrote:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer
one from FreeBSD Ports.
system SA has not updated in ports to 3.3.0 yet
It's
On 5-Mar-2010, at 11:45, LuKreme wrote:
On 04-Mar-10 21:41, James Smallacombe wrote:
I tried to upgrade from SA 3.2.5 to 3.3.0 by installing the newer one
from FreeBSD Ports.
Really? I just did a update of the port tree and yet
$ portversion p5-Mail-SpamAssassin
p5-Mail-SpamAssassin
38 matches
Mail list logo
