Re: Rule to match a blacklist of email addresses.

2015-01-11 Thread Steve Haeck
On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote: I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected List-Id header) - or something else? Uhm - no * Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the

Re: Rule to match a blacklist of email addresses.

2015-01-11 Thread Steve
On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote: I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected List-Id header) - or something else? Uhm - no * Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the

Re: Malware Patrol SA Rules

2015-01-11 Thread Marcin Mirosław
W dniu 2015-01-11 o 04:49, Reindl Harald pisze: Am 10.01.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Marcin Mirosław: W dniu 2015-01-10 o 15:27, Reindl Harald pisze: Am 10.01.2015 um 15:19 schrieb David Flanigan: Is anyone using the Malware Patrol 3rd party Spamassassin Rules

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if the key check is PASS ? this leads to spamassassin VALID, but opendkim testing INVALID hmm A quick Google

Re: Malware Patrol SA Rules

2015-01-11 Thread Marcin Mirosław
P.S.2. All grepping was made in directory contains only spam.

Re: Malware Patrol SA Rules

2015-01-11 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 11.01.2015 um 16:20 schrieb Marcin Mirosław: W dniu 2015-01-11 o 04:49, Reindl Harald pisze: Am 10.01.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Marcin Mirosław: W dniu 2015-01-10 o 15:27, Reindl Harald pisze: Am 10.01.2015 um 15:19 schrieb David Flanigan: Is anyone using the Malware Patrol 3rd party

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 1/11/2015 12:45 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16: A quick Google search brings up this https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/ It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower than 1024 is accurate. bug created,

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 11.01.2015 um 18:16 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail: On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if the key check is PASS ? this leads to spamassassin VALID,

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Benny Pedersen
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16: A quick Google search brings up this https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/ It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower than 1024 is accurate. bug created, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendkim/bugs/215/

rule: virtual account not confirmed

2015-01-11 Thread Marieke Janssen
Hello all, In some (apple|bank|creditcard) scam mail I found the following header and made a rule for it. X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel3.example.org: authenticated_id: f0829646/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed describe MJ_VACCOUNTvirtual account not

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread A. Schulze
Kevin A. McGrail: https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/ It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower than 1024 is accurate. I disagree. Lauras article is more then two years old. But since more then 4 years ( Sep 2011 ) RFC 6376 say very

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Franck Martin
On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote: I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 1/11/2015 10:04 PM, Franck Martin wrote: On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote: I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to validate signatures with

Re: possible bug in Mail::DKIM when keysize is under 1024 bits

2015-01-11 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits If it is 512 to 2048, I think the rfc is clear for recipients. Regards, KAM

Re: rule: virtual account not confirmed

2015-01-11 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 1/11/2015 3:24 PM, Marieke Janssen wrote: Hello all, In some (apple|bank|creditcard) scam mail I found the following header and made a rule for it. X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel3.example.org: authenticated_id: f0829646/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed describe

Permission Problem and bad file descriptor

2015-01-11 Thread webmaster
Hello guys, Since yesterday I'm running a server with ubuntu 14.04.1 and spamassassin version 3.4.0-1ubuntu2. Spamassassin was installed as a package from the ubuntu repositories. SpamAssassin runs in daemon mode with a user named spamd. This morning I got the following email. It indicates,