On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:43:41 -0400,
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
David Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
David If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would
David recommend Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible than
David
Hey Mark,
Do you have a firewall in place that tries to do a deep packet
inspection
on DNS UDP packets but does not understand EDNS0 (the OPT RR) ?
thanks for the suggestion!
Unfortunately, the network is not the culprit. I tried to apply my chef recipes
to a virtual machine on my
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
Ian Zimmerman i...@buug.org wrote:
Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl.
I have very unusual filtering requirements (for
Hey!
On Oct 28, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Thomas Preißler tho...@preissler.me wrote:
Hey Mark,
Do you have a firewall in place that tries to do a deep packet
inspection
on DNS UDP packets but does not understand EDNS0 (the OPT RR) ?
thanks for the suggestion!
Unfortunately,
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
Ian Zimmerman i...@buug.org wrote:
Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real standard
(RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:28:19 +0100
Andrzej A. Filip andrzej.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I
have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rules that
change depending on time-of-day or depending on who has the support
From: Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:37:35 -0600
In the first email:
# The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
# at 1 time, to keep the load down.
#
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* 40
| spamc -x
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Jeff Mincy wrote:
I agree with everything you wrote but only when bayes autolearning is
turned off. Bayes learning holds an exclusive lock to the bayes
database particularly during expiration.
If spamc does bayes autolearning and starts an expiration then other
spamc runs
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:55 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, francis picabia wrote:
uri URI_EXAMPLE_EXTRA m;^https?://(?:www\.)?example\.com[^/?];i
However another spoofed message was received today and the rule
did not capture it.
If I want to detect
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
On 2014-10-28 06:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:28:19 +0100
Andrzej A. Filip andrzej.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I
have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rules that
change depending on time-of-day or
On 10/27/2014 8:37 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
In the first email:
# The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
# at 1 time, to keep the load down.
Thanks, that was my thought as well and your analysis on using spamc and
removing the lock was EXACTLY where my thought
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
Your assumption, the list
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -0700
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean a consummate chef need fear them!
Nonetheless one should keep bare knife switches away from said chef
lest he forget that being an consummate expert in one field does not
make him even barely
On 2014-10-28 11:24, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -0700
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean a consummate chef need fear them!
Nonetheless one should keep bare knife switches away from said chef
lest he forget that being an consummate expert in
On 10/27/2014 5:37 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
header__KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1Subject =~ /unsubscribe/i
Ouch. Would you please /^anchor$/ that beast? Unless you actually intend
this sub-thread to be swept off the list, too. ;)
I was trying to stay broad but see your point.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM, francis picabia fpica...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:55 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, francis picabia wrote:
uri URI_EXAMPLE_EXTRA m;^https?://(?:www\.)?example\.com[^/?];i
However another spoofed
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:43:04 -0700
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
jdow That is hardly a compelling reason to change from procmail to
jdow perl, for me or others with working procmail systems. You seem to
jdow be advocating handing me perl and turning me loose after ripping
jdow procmail out of my
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, Axb wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
So we added this wanting to play with this command and had no change in
behavior for an email with this from header:
From: Notification
On 10/28/2014 10:13 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, Axb wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
So we added this wanting to play with this command and had no change in
behavior for an
On 10/28/2014 5:19 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/28/2014 10:13 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, Axb wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
So we added this wanting to play with this command
On Oct 28, 2014 at 07:40 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
=Ian Zimmerman i...@buug.org wrote:
=
= Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
= standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
=
=It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as
On 10/28/2014 10:30 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 5:19 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/28/2014 10:13 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, Axb wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
So
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:06 PM +0100 Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
Testing this on my MTA's now...
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Server Architect
On 10/28/2014 11:16 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:06 PM +0100 Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
Testing this on my MTA's now...
Not
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:16 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
qua...@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:06 PM +0100 Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
On 10/28/2014 11:28 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:16 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
qua...@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:06 PM +0100 Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if
On 10/28/2014 10:30 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 5:19 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/28/2014 10:13 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, Axb wrote:
Patience quota exceeded.
What a weird way to get a new TLD's ROI
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host link
endif
So
On 10/29/2014 12:23 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:39 +0100
before I commit please test with
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST Whitelisted header host or domain
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_WHITELIST Blacklisted header host or
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 11:19 -0700, jdebert wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
don't learn anything except to
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a Procmail is dead article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail website is simply in
an awful and atrocious state. It
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a Procmail is dead article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a Procmail is dead article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:39 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a Procmail is dead article and post it
somewhere. It
On 2014-10-28 13:25, Thomas Preißler wrote:
Finally, I’m able to reproduce this issue on a plain debian wheezy system:
- install debian wheezy
- enable backports and run apt-get update
- apt-get -t wheezy-backports install spamassassin
- apt-get install libmail-dkim-perl
- set 156.154.70.1 as
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
procmail - it is used because i know it and it just works - so why
should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use
it
I use
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:33:04 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 11:19 -0700, jdebert wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
Redirecting
On 10/28/2014 7:10 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
procmail - it is used because i know it and it just works - so why
should somebody step in and maintain
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
procmail - it is used because i know it and it just works - so why
should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use
it
I use Email::Filter,
While grubbing thru messages in one of my spam traps I came across one
that had negative scores from:
-2.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
-0.5 KHOP_RCVD_TRUSTDNS-Whitelisted sender is verified
Since it also hit RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100
David B Funk dbf...@engineering.uiowa.edu writes:
While grubbing thru messages in one of my spam traps I came across one
that had negative scores from:
-2.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
-0.5 KHOP_RCVD_TRUSTDNS-Whitelisted sender is verified
Jeff Mincy wrote:
I agree with everything you wrote but only when bayes autolearning is
turned off. Bayes learning holds an exclusive lock to the bayes
database particularly during expiration.
But the example was calling spamc. Bayes autolearning would be
occuring in the spamd side of
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:56 -0700, jdebert wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:33:04 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but
they don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
Your assumption, the
43 matches
Mail list logo
