Philippe Ratté skrev den 2013-02-13 23:05:
dbg: spf: def_spf_whitelist_from: already checked spf and didn't get
pass, skipping whitelist check
why does it not get pass when spf is okay ?
http://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/hotmail.com
| 3485 | %domain.ca | whitelist_from | u...@hotmail.com |
Hi list,
Is it just me or is TBIRD_SPOOF hitting pretty much all initial email
sent by Thunderbird, not via a ML etc?
$ grep TBIRD_SPOOF *.cf
72_active.cf:##{ TBIRD_SPOOF
72_active.cf:meta TBIRD_SPOOF __MUA_TBIRD
!__HAS_IN_REPLY_TO !__HAS_X_REF !__THREADED !__VIA_ML
Martin Gregorie skrev den 2013-02-11 16:41:
Maybe there's a case for classifying mail as ham/spam by reading the
raw
mail instead of looking at it with an MUA and being shown the HTML
part?
why is it needed ?, if mua clients dont trust html, then use text mode
mua, problem is gone
well it
On 12/02/13 20:33, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 2/12/13 1:15 PM, David F. Skolld...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
PS: Beware of penalizing other countries too much. My mail originates
from Canada and the PostgreSQL mailing list is (or used to be?) hosted
in Panama. Furthermore, by far the lion's
Steve Freegard skrev den 2013-02-12 21:19:
header RELAY_NOT_US X-Relay-Countries =~ /\b(?!US)[A-Z]{2}\b/
and what date is the database from ?, ip2cc ipv4-addr, to show it when
its build, to update it either use the new relay_country plugin or
update ip2cc database, if its over 6
On 14/02/13 12:04, Ned Slider wrote:
Hi list,
Is it just me or is TBIRD_SPOOF hitting pretty much all initial email
sent by Thunderbird, not via a ML etc?
$ grep TBIRD_SPOOF *.cf
72_active.cf:##{ TBIRD_SPOOF
72_active.cf:meta TBIRD_SPOOF __MUA_TBIRD !__HAS_IN_REPLY_TO
!__HAS_X_REF
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 13:18 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Martin Gregorie skrev den 2013-02-11 16:41:
Maybe there's a case for classifying mail as ham/spam by reading the
raw
mail instead of looking at it with an MUA and being shown the HTML
part?
why is it needed ?, if mua clients
On 2/14/13 6:21 AM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
On 12/02/13 20:33, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 2/12/13 1:15 PM, David F. Skolld...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
PS: Beware of penalizing other countries too much. My mail originates
from Canada and the PostgreSQL mailing list is (or
Is anyone else being plagued by unreadable nonsense from hinet.net? It
originates from China, it seems. I've just had to tell procmail to send
it all to the bit bucket.
Just curious. Is hinet.net a known problem?
The mail came from 65.54.190.123 and it passes SPF
dont use whitelist_from, with that setting anyone can use that email as
sender to get whitelisted, this is okay if you do spf testing in mta
only, so spamassassin follow it as an ok, but not if you are not testing
spf in mta
What should I
On 2/13/2013 11:03 PM, Anirudha Patil wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Mark Martinec
mark.martinec...@ijs.si mailto:mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Anirudha,
I have a stable running setup of postfix after-queue using
amavis-new
[currently using for content inspection
Am 14.02.2013 15:24, schrieb Walter Hurry:
Is anyone else being plagued by unreadable nonsense from hinet.net? It
originates from China, it seems. I've just had to tell procmail to send
it all to the bit bucket.
Just curious. Is hinet.net a known problem?
yes, hinet is a problem since
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:21:33 +
Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Nice idea, but why not just use SPF for fedex.com as they bother to
publish an SPF record? Surely that has to be a far more reliable
indicator it wasn't sent from fedex?
That works if the envelope sender is
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Ned Slider wrote:
Hi list,
Is it just me or is TBIRD_SPOOF hitting pretty much all initial email sent by
Thunderbird, not via a ML etc?
That was an experimental rule that hasn't panned out and has been removed.
It should go away with the next update.
--
John Hardin
On 14/02/13 14:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 14.02.2013 15:24, schrieb Walter Hurry:
Is anyone else being plagued by unreadable nonsense from hinet.net? It
originates from China, it seems. I've just had to tell procmail to send
it all to the bit bucket.
Just curious. Is hinet.net a known
On 14/02/13 14:48, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Ned Slider wrote:
Hi list,
Is it just me or is TBIRD_SPOOF hitting pretty much all initial email
sent by Thunderbird, not via a ML etc?
That was an experimental rule that hasn't panned out and has been
removed. It should go away
I have been seeing this in my log once a day for a few days now. What is the
problem and how can I get it resolved.
This is the latest log entry, but all were failures with amazonaws:
http: GET
http://rules.yerp.org.s3.amazonaws.com/rules/stage/3302013021221.tar.gz
request failed: 403
+1 for two days now
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 09:28 -0800, emmett wrote:
I have been seeing this in my log once a day for a few days now. What is the
problem and how can I get it resolved.
This is the latest log entry, but all were failures with amazonaws:
http: GET
18 matches
Mail list logo
