Re: Latest Spamassassin Rules

2017-10-27 Thread David Jones
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,

Re: Latest Spamassassin Rules

2017-10-27 Thread Larry Rosenman
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 >

Latest Spamassassin Rules

2017-10-27 Thread Shane Wise
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

Re: Bank fraud phish

2017-10-27 Thread RW
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

Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant

2017-10-27 Thread David B Funk
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schulze wrote: Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr: RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.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:

Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant

2017-10-27 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr: RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.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] ";"

Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant

2017-10-27 Thread A. Schulze
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 RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.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

Re: Bank fraud phish

2017-10-27 Thread 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 requiring both SPF and DKIM must pass, > which is what we do in our own setup. Where in the RFC does it say that?

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

2017-10-27 Thread Merijn van den Kroonenberg
>> >> 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

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

2017-10-27 Thread Tom Hendrikx
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