On 2014-06-05 21:48, zespri wrote:
As I read it, it means that non-forwarding dnsmasq is simply nonsensical.
What am I missing?
Yeah... I don't believe dnsmasq would be a good choice, unbound or BIND
would be better choices.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
On 06/06/2014 08:33 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-06-05 21:48, zespri wrote:
As I read it, it means that non-forwarding dnsmasq is simply
nonsensical.
What am I missing?
Yeah... I don't believe dnsmasq would be a good choice, unbound or BIND
would be better choices.
or Powerdns-recursor
Thank you all. I've installed djbdns and now the URIBL_BLOCKED is gone! Yay!
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Why-do-I-get-both-URIBL-DBL-SPAM-and-URIBL-BLOCKED-tp109457p109463.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I realize that this is not directly related to spam assassin, but I appeal to
all you helpful folk here.
For whatever reason if I send an email from gmail when it arrives it's
marked with T_DKIM_INVALID. I inspected the original and the result and
there are a few differences. Dkim header has this:
Also, it appears to me that the ISP provider caches not any worse than
the
local server dns server would cache, so could you please explain, what
benefit caching them locally provides over using already set up DNS
server at ISP?
The caching aspect isn't particularly relevant.
The problem
Anthony Cartmell-2 wrote
The caching aspect isn't particularly relevant.
The problem is that your ISP's name server will be querying the URIBL
server on behalf of perhaps thousands of SpamAssassin instances on other
machines. So it's blocked because it's making too many queries from a
Am 05.06.2014 21:48, schrieb Franck Martin:
If the policy=reject and the dmarc is fail, then spamassassin should
not see the email because opendmarc would have already rejected it (if
not it is due to local policy override, so spamassassin should not
change that)
In the default configuration
On 06.06.14 00:28, zespri wrote:
Thank you all. I've installed djbdns and now the URIBL_BLOCKED is gone! Yay!
djbdns?
I really wonder, when more alternatives were advised to you,
why did you choose the oldest, worst, most buggy and years unsupported
alternative?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
djbdns?
I really wonder, when more alternatives were advised to you,
why did you choose the oldest, worst, most buggy and years unsupported
alternative?
Well, on the page that the original link led to this page was linked:
On 06.06.14 00:44, zespri wrote:
For whatever reason if I send an email from gmail when it arrives it's
marked with T_DKIM_INVALID. I inspected the original and the result and
there are a few differences. Dkim header has this:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
djbdns?
I really wonder, when more alternatives were advised to you,
why did you choose the oldest, worst, most buggy and years unsupported
alternative?
On 06.06.14 02:11, zespri wrote:
Well, on the page that the original link led to this page was linked:
On 6/6/2014 5:11 AM, zespri wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
djbdns?
I really wonder, when more alternatives were advised to you,
why did you choose the oldest, worst, most buggy and years unsupported
alternative?
Well, on the page that the original link led to this page was linked:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
zespri wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
djbdns?
I really wonder, when more alternatives were advised to you,
why did you choose the oldest, worst, most buggy and years
unsupported alternative?
In short: when you get several options offered
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:11:47 -0700 (PDT) zespri wrote:
In short: when you get several options offered to you, and you have
no prior knowledge you've got to pick one randomly. That's what I did.
On 06.06.14 15:14, RW wrote:
If you've already installed djbdns I'd leave it. I'm still using it and
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:42:50 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:11:47 -0700 (PDT) zespri wrote:
In short: when you get several options offered to you, and you have
no prior knowledge you've got to pick one randomly. That's what I
did.
On 06.06.14 15:14, RW wrote:
RW wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:42:50 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I would not be surprised... I have already met people having problem
because of djbdns (and that's why I don't recommend using it)
What problem did they have specifically with dnscache?
Seconded; I'd be interested
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:35:52 -0400
Kris Deugau wrote:
RW wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:42:50 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I would not be surprised... I have already met people having
problem because of djbdns (and that's why I don't recommend using
it)
What problem did they
On 06/05/2014 09:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Seems the only problems Daniele could solve are obsolete rules and
mistrained BAYES database.
Hello
I deleted the bayes database and trained it using real spamham
Today I got another one of these emails, the strange thing is that if I
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 11:39 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 06.06.14 02:11, a pseudonymous Nabble user wrote:
Well, on the page that the original link led to this page was linked:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver
It also clearly states to use a *non-forwarding*
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 00:44 -0700, a pseudonymous Nabble user wrote:
For whatever reason if I send an email from gmail when it arrives it's
marked with T_DKIM_INVALID. I inspected the original and the result and
there are a few differences.
By sending from gmail, are you referring to using the
We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove the
):
Thank you for you reply
1) I used gmail web interface, but now after you asked I tried sending from
iPad. Result is somewhat different. There is no multipart content type now,
but T_DKIM_INVALID is still present.
2) I looked at the original by going to the gmail web interface and
selecting show
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
On 06/06/2014 11:32 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove the
):
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove the
):
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 23:50 +0200, Axb wrote:
[...] Anyone have some working rules they could share?
Pls note than any rule shared via lists usually looses its teeth within
a few hours .-)
Sorry, that's incorrect. The SA commits mailing list is not code only,
but includes rules/ and
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 00:44 -0700, a pseudonymous Nabble user wrote:
For whatever reason if I send an email from gmail when it arrives it's
marked with T_DKIM_INVALID. I inspected the original and the result and
there are a few differences. [...]
3) The last and I'm guessing the most
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
Here’s a prototype:
http://ur1.ca/hgxkx
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 14:47 -0700, a pseudonymous Nabble user wrote:
Thank you for you reply
1) I used gmail web interface, [...]
2) I looked at the original by going to the gmail web interface and
selecting show original
In that case, it is not necessarily guaranteed the multipart
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 18:36 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
Here’s a prototype:
http://ur1.ca/hgxkx
That Return-Path really sticks out. It's basically the
On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 03:50 +0200, me wrote:
That Return-Path really sticks out. It's basically the From: address
with embedded To: address.
So, in addition to the From matches To and occasional other situations
where remembering matches for subsequent regex based rules would come in
handy,
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 18:36 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
Here’s a prototype:
http://ur1.ca/hgxkx
That
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 19:02 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That Return-Path really sticks out. It's basically the From: address
with embedded To: address.
It would be possible to do a multiple-header rule with captures and
backreferences to
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 19:02 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That Return-Path really sticks out. It's basically the From: address
with embedded To: address.
It would be possible to do a multiple-header
I'm having the exact opposite problem. I've created several new
addresses that i'm hoping to get clogged up with spam so that I can have
a fluid target to write rules against, but so far... nothing.
craig@dioxidized, where i posted a bunch of ads on craigslist with the
address exposed has not
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 22:34 -0400, lucas k wrote:
I'm having the exact opposite problem. I've created several new
addresses that i'm hoping to get clogged up with spam so that I can have
a fluid target to write rules against, but so far... nothing.
craig@dioxidized, where i posted a bunch
35 matches
Mail list logo
