>
> Am 14.03.2015 um 16:45 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> ...but as I mentioned before, training spam from mail to non-existent
> recipients may be even a good thing…
I would not train from mail to non-existent recipients, but would restrict to a
defined set of spamtraps (which may have bee
Doesn't always mean nobody's home, I have great hesitation in using
something that releases often, its an indication the developer(s) are
hopeless, especially if its constant bug fixes - you only need to look
at phpmy as an example, it used to be good, but in recent years,
dev_#1 brought on
"@lbutlr" writes:
> On 13 Mar 2015, at 17:54 , Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Currently I'm using spamass-milter, which seems to have been teetering
>> on the edge of unmaintained, although the 0.4.0 release on 2014-09-11
>> staved that off for a while. Note that the previous release was
>> 2006-04-05
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:45:16 +0100
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> In the last ten years i saw a handfull of these, but ok, perhaps
> different at your site.
Mostly they're spams with the payload in a PDF document, a Word
document or an image. Very occasionally, we see ones where the plain-text
is p
Am 14.03.2015 um 20:22 schrieb David F. Skoll:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:17:27 +0100
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>> Ok, but big spam mails are extrem rare, i wouldnt invest time in that
>
> They are quite rare, but common enough IMO that our customers would be
> annoyed if we didn't scan them.
>
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:17:27 +0100
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Ok, but big spam mails are extrem rare, i wouldnt invest time in that
They are quite rare, but common enough IMO that our customers would be
annoyed if we didn't scan them.
Regards,
David.
Am 14.03.2015 um 18:11 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 14.03.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
>> Am 14.03.2015 um 17:55 schrieb David F. Skoll:
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:08:50 +0100
>>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
Am 14.03.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> On 3/14/2015 1:1
On 3/14/2015 1:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
hm - that's all additional layers leading to more complexity
couldn't SA at the end internally cut the message after configuration
value XX size for scanning while add the headers to the unaltered
version?
Sure but I have lots of feature requests a
Am 14.03.2015 um 18:27 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 3/14/2015 12:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you truncate messages for the scan?
I use MD and pass the load average for the box to the milter. From
there, depending on the load average, I chop large messages to be
smaller and send them to
On 3/14/2015 12:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you truncate messages for the scan?
I use MD and pass the load average for the box to the milter. From
there, depending on the load average, I chop large messages to be
smaller and send them to SA for classification. We then use the score
an
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:01:10 +0100
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> define oversize...,
It's configurable, obviously.
> cutting mail content may not allowed in many countries,
Ummm... WTF? We cut what we pass to SpamAssassin. We don't actually
alter the original message. That is either accepted,
Am 14.03.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 14.03.2015 um 17:55 schrieb David F. Skoll:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:08:50 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.03.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 3/14/2015 1:14 AM, David B Funk wrote:
truncating a large message and
only passing t
On 3/14/2015 1:01 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
define oversize..., cutting mail content may not allowed in many
countries, most legal policy, is reject ( at income smtp level ) or pass
, tag passed mail is allowed if the reciept accepts this
We are talking about modifying a stateful copy of the e
Am 14.03.2015 um 17:55 schrieb David F. Skoll:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:08:50 +0100
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 14.03.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
>>> On 3/14/2015 1:14 AM, David B Funk wrote:
truncating a large message and
only passing the first N-KB to SA. As that involv
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:08:50 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 14.03.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> > On 3/14/2015 1:14 AM, David B Funk wrote:
> >> truncating a large message and
> >> only passing the first N-KB to SA. As that involves munging MIME
> >> headers it has to be done inside
Am 14.03.2015 um 17:00 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 3/14/2015 1:14 AM, David B Funk wrote:
truncating a large message and
only passing the first N-KB to SA. As that involves munging MIME headers
it has to be done inside the milter.
I just truncate the message hard and it generally works bett
On 3/14/2015 1:14 AM, David B Funk wrote:
truncating a large message and
only passing the first N-KB to SA. As that involves munging MIME headers
it has to be done inside the milter.
I just truncate the message hard and it generally works better than not
scanning. What do you do to truncate?
On 14.03.15 15:00, Filip Havlíček wrote:
I manage email through ISPConfig, I think wildcard for any domain is
not set.
seems you have relay_recipient_maps set, isn't your domain listed there?
note that postfix rejects non-existing recipients by default
(http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#sm
I manage email through ISPConfig, I think wildcard for any domain is not
set.
Dne 13.3.2015 v 16:02 Matus UHLAR - fantomas napsal(a):
Filip Havlí?ek wrote:
I would like to ask you, how can I *allow **only **legitimate* email
addresses (existing users) for bayes learning?
On 13.03.15 14:54, F
Am 14.03.2015 um 14:08 schrieb sha...@shanew.net:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Looking at the source for spamass-milter it looks like they're taking
the "-p socket" argument and passing it directly to smfi_setconn so
you should be able to give an INET socket address if you use the
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Looking at the source for spamass-milter it looks like they're taking
the "-p socket" argument and passing it directly to smfi_setconn so
you should be able to give an INET socket address if you use the
correct syntax (see docs for smfi_setconn).
The sp
I just came across that in my searching yesterday, but hadn't had a
chance to dig deeper. I had seen roundhouse, and a few other things
here and there, but they all seemed lacking. After all, as others
have mentioned, cloning your mail stream is not to be done lightly.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Ted
David B Funk skrev den 2015-03-14 01:23:
As usps.com publishes SPF records you can use "whitelist_from_auth" and
be safer from abuse.
thay miss to add dkim, and dmarc says fo=1
oh crap :=)
Rick Hantz (TirNanOg) skrev den 2015-03-14 00:14:
For some reason,
whitelist_from *@*.usps.gov
whitelist_from *@*.usps.com
doesn't work on the header below. Anyone spot something that I missed?
id D8.68.23218.0CC53055; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:55:12 -0500 (CDT)
Return-Path:
From:
whitelist_from
24 matches
Mail list logo
