Ram wrote on Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:42:31 +0530:
But as per the document domain wide,
there is no domain wide, only sitewide.
user need to create
and as the users to forward the spam mail to that user and learn.
correct me if my understand wrong
correction:
s...@domain.com (please use
http://old.nabble.com/file/p28178215/dkim-failed.eml dkim-failed.eml
I manage multiple mail servers, and recently decided to implement DKIM, but
I met a very strange problem.
I tried to send a DKIM-signed email to both @iwtek.net and @ieaa.org, as in
the attachment (both mail servers are
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, ram wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:27 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, ram wrote:
i need to created seperate user for this like s...@domain.com, is this
correct.
No, you don't _need_ a special user in your domain to catch spam for
On Thursday 08 April 2010 15:01:40 leeyc0 wrote:
http://old.nabble.com/file/p28178215/dkim-failed.eml dkim-failed.eml
I manage multiple mail servers, and recently decided to implement DKIM, but
I met a very strange problem.
I tried to send a DKIM-signed email to both @iwtek.net and
Mark Martinec wrote:
The dkim-failed.eml message looks fine, the DKIM signature validates.
If both domains are under your control/access, the simplest is to
collect the message from both mailboxes and compare them.
Mark
I tried, but still have no clue, but discovered another
Mark Martinec wrote:
The dkim-failed.eml message looks fine, the DKIM signature validates.
If both domains are under your control/access, the simplest is to
collect the message from both mailboxes and compare them.
Mark
I changed to use 1024 bit RSA key, and seems the email
I tried, but still have no clue, but discovered another horrible thing.
I tried to send another email from gmail to iwtek.net, the DKIM signature
validates at iwtek.net (see attachment). I am running mad now...
http://old.nabble.com/file/p28178961/gmail.eml gmail.eml
One thing I noticed: this
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:15 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
he doesn't take FPs into account. this is a very serious problem with
the methodology.
+1
--
J.D. Falk jdf...@returnpath.net
Return Path Inc
Hello All,
It seems that the rule URIBL_BLACK is never matched in my installation, even
when it should.
My server is a debian Lenny, postfix, spampd (policy daemon), spamassassin
3.2.5-2+lenny2
When I run 'spamassassin -D some_spam_mail', the rule fires correctly
(even when I run this
On 08/04/2010 2:00 PM, Frederic De Mees wrote:
Hello All,
It seems that the rule URIBL_BLACK is never matched in my installation,
even when it should.
My server is a debian Lenny, postfix, spampd (policy daemon),
spamassassin 3.2.5-2+lenny2
When I run 'spamassassin -D some_spam_mail', the
Hi,
I am running spamassassin with a PostgreSQL DB as bayes storage.
After an upgrade from debian etch to debian lenny, this bayes storage
doesn't work anymore.
The following error appears in the logfile when debugging of bayes related
actions is switched on:
Thu Apr 8 19:57:19 2010 [15631]
Hi,
Have you looked in the sql for postgres ? Have the structure changed?
That would be my first step to make sure. ( I'm using InnoDB MySQL )
and between 3.2.5 and 3.1.1 only some Indexes changed ... but I can
see you come from a very very old version I think.
mvh
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:43
Thank you Rick Your diagnostic was correct.
- - - - (extract from /etc/defaults/spampd) - - -
# Wether or not to do only local checks
# if this is turned on, no network based checks
# (like DNS-Blacklists) are done. (0/1)
LOCALONLY=1
Please note that I use spampd (not spamd). This setup allows
I changed to use 1024 bit RSA key, and seems the email passed DKIM
validation. Seems that my perl installation at iwtek.net somehow cannot
validate 2048 bit RSA DKIM signatures. Does anyone have some clue?
That is possible too, the DNS packet is probably larger than 512 bytes,
and perhaps
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Royce Williams royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td15659736.html
... Daryl
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my re-re-re-reading. Nobody has said that my
example was broken (or was any good, for that matter), so I'm
operating from that.
With all
leeyc0 wrote:
I changed to use 1024 bit RSA key, and seems the email passed DKIM
validation. Seems that my perl installation at iwtek.net somehow cannot
validate 2048 bit RSA DKIM signatures. Does anyone have some clue?
That is possible too, the DNS packet is probably larger than 512
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my re-re-re-reading. Nobody has said that my
example was broken (or was any good,
leeyc0 wrote:
After some struggle and tracing every bit of code (including tracing
installing cpan packages!), apparently it is a bug in the latest
Net::DNS::Packet::Resolver::Base send_tcp function call...
Yes, it is caused by a bug in Net::DNS::Resolver::Base (sorry, there was a
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:31:37PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
architecture based on my
Hi,
Independent testing like the VB tests tell me much more.
http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2010/03/vb201003-vbspam-comparative
And yes that more or less the commercial products, but it shows also how
lits like SURBL perform. But also ratings of the large vendors. And the FP
Hi List,
Lately, I have been getting a lot of these escaping through our
outbound mail system. The complaint was submitted by AOL's FBL and
hence there are not many headers intact. The only thing I think I can
write a rule for is the lengthy spam subjects which are often
incorrectly spelt. Any
22 matches
Mail list logo
