On 10/27/2017 12:47 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:38:35PM -0500, Shane Wise wrote:
Greetings,
I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated
since June 24th. When I run sa-update I receive the following:
channel: current version is 1799552,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:38:35PM -0500, Shane Wise wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated
> since June 24th. When I run sa-update I receive the following:
>
> channel: current version is 1799552, new version is 1799552, skipping
>
Greetings,
I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated
since June 24th. When I run sa-update I receive the following:
channel: current version is 1799552, new version is 1799552, skipping
channel
Is this really still the most current? If not what do I need to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:43:30 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 27.10.2017 um 13:54 schrieb RW:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:33:20 -0400
> > Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >>> The DMARC standard says that EITHER (only takes one) SPF must pass
> >>> and
> >
> >> The relevant DNS R allows
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schulze wrote:
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
And it still explicitly says that construct is legal:
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
On 27.10.17 16:08, A. Schulze wrote:
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
irelevant, the group addresses are still valid:
group = display-name ":" [group-list] ";"
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:33:20 -0400
Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> > The DMARC standard says that EITHER (only takes one) SPF must pass
> > and
> The relevant DNS R allows requiring both SPF and DKIM must pass,
> which is what we do in our own setup.
Where in the RFC does it say that?
>>
>> Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so
>> I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday.
>>
>
> After installing these rules, I'm seeing one warning in my log during
> spamassassin reload:
>
> Oct 27 09:48:24 myhostname spamd[16256]: rules: failed
On 26-10-17 20:33, David Jones wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 01:09 PM, David Jones wrote:
>> On 10/25/2017 06:15 AM, David Jones wrote:
>>> cd /tmp
>>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813149.tar.gz
>>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813149.tar.gz.sha1
>>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813149.tar.gz.asc
10 matches
Mail list logo