Re: USER_IN_WHITELIST

On 6 Jul 2016, at 23:10, lorenzo wrote: [...] The output from spamassassin -t -D < In-whitelist.txt gives the answer, I believe: address hefg...@hkjhkjhk.onmicrosoft.com matches whitelist or blacklist regexp: ^.*microsoft\.com$ Very sneaky. I think I can handle this one from here. Thanks

Re: USER_IN_WHITELIST

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Bill Cole > wrote: > > On 6 Jul 2016, at 21:13, Lorenzo Thurman wrote: > >> I’ve been receiving some spam where spamassassin identifies the sender with >> USER_IN_WHITELIST. These senders (or domains) are most definitely

Re: USER_IN_WHITELIST

On 6 Jul 2016, at 21:58, David B Funk wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Lorenzo Thurman wrote: > >> I’ve been receiving some spam where spamassassin identifies the sender with  >> USER_IN_WHITELIST. These senders (or domains) are >> most definitely not in my whitelist. How can I get around this

Re: USER_IN_WHITELIST

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Lorenzo Thurman wrote: I’ve been receiving some spam where spamassassin identifies the sender with  USER_IN_WHITELIST. These senders (or domains) are most definitely not in my whitelist. How can I get around this problem?Thanks SpamAssassin comes with some built-in

Re: USER_IN_WHITELIST

On 6 Jul 2016, at 21:13, Lorenzo Thurman wrote: I’ve been receiving some spam where spamassassin identifies the sender with USER_IN_WHITELIST. These senders (or domains) are most definitely not in my whitelist. How can I get around this problem? There are so many relevant variables

USER_IN_WHITELIST

I’ve been receiving some spam where spamassassin identifies the sender with USER_IN_WHITELIST. These senders (or domains) are most definitely not in my whitelist. How can I get around this problem? Thanks

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

Am 06.07.2016 um 17:35 schrieb John Hardin: On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Paul Stead wrote: On 06/07/16 16:16, John Hardin wrote: Does that cache-min-ttl also affect NXDOMAIN? Is it possible to configure different TTL for NXDOMAIN (relatively low) and positive results (relatively high)? For this

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Paul Stead wrote: On 06/07/16 16:16, John Hardin wrote: Does that cache-min-ttl also affect NXDOMAIN? Is it possible to configure different TTL for NXDOMAIN (relatively low) and positive results (relatively high)? For this cache-max-negative-ttl exists :) :) It's

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.07.2016 um 14:36 schrieb RW: On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:01:17 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > since there is a local unbound-cache with > >cache-min-ttl: 300 thanks for the hint, but look at

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

On 06/07/16 16:16, John Hardin wrote: Does that cache-min-ttl also affect NXDOMAIN? Is it possible to configure different TTL for NXDOMAIN (relatively low) and positive results (relatively high)? For this cache-max-negative-ttl exists :) Paul -- Paul Stead Systems Engineer Zen Internet

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

Am 06.07.2016 um 14:36 schrieb RW: On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:01:17 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: since there is a local unbound-cache with cache-min-ttl: 300 thanks for the hint, but look at https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7335#c8 reduce the value would make the problem

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered for the same message

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:01:17 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > since there is a local unbound-cache with > > cache-min-ttl: 300 You might want to review that. From http://uribl.com July 8, 2015: Reduction in list time latency The spam trend of late has been to use short lived, high-volume

Re: URIBL randomly not triggered (and SPF too)

see also https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7335 BTW: the bugtracker has also a major bug - click on "My Bugs" leads to the URL below listing a ton of bugreports back to the year 2011 and pretends they are reported by me