On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of fake DHL delivery notices using the shortener
> smarturl.it. I suggest adding it to __URL_SHORTENER.
FWIW there is a long list of url shorteners as part of the DecodeShortURLs
plugin (sadly, no longer maintained), here:
I'm seeing a lot of fake DHL delivery notices using the shortener
smarturl.it. I suggest adding it to __URL_SHORTENER.
On May 30, 2019, at 1:57 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> The zero length temp file is left behind.
Finally got back to this (I’ve been ill) and have a little but more information.
When I try to feed a single message to sa-learn -D —spam /path/to/mailfile
I get many lines ending with:
> Jun 6
RW wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:45:13 -0400
Kris Deugau wrote:
jim.ander...@wohosting.net wrote:
Greetings,
I've searched but haven't had any luck finding documentation about
how to determine the optimal settings for spamd children
(max-children, min-children, max-spare, min-spare, and
Hi all...
i want to write a plugin that only triggers if a specific rule has triggered
before.
can anyone, please, point to me to any already existing perl code than can help
me or i can reuse?
Thanks!
P.
On 06.06.19 00:59, MarcelM wrote:
Ahh... I see. So probably other headers are modified by the mail server as
well, and that is why SA's SPF check fails!
this is probably SPF check for ampel-24.de which fails when forwarded
locally.
as you can see, amazon SPF succeeds:
Received: from
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:30:31 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 05.06.19 23:06, MarcelM wrote:
> >These are the full headers. (Sorry, did not realise all emails get
> >redacted)
> >
> >https://pastebin.com/Z6hkL9hD
>
> the mails didn't get redacted. The headers are quoted even on the
>
On 06.06.19 00:59, MarcelM wrote:
Ahh... I see. So probably other headers are modified by the mail server as
well, and that is why SA's SPF check fails!
Why would it do that ? I will read up on that.
because, after forwarding is done, SPF would fail - that is why SRS applied.
--
Matus UHLAR -
Ahh... I see. So probably other headers are modified by the mail server as
well, and that is why SA's SPF check fails!
Why would it do that ? I will read up on that.
Thank you!
--
Sent from: http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/SpamAssassin-Users-f3.html
On 05.06.19 23:06, MarcelM wrote:
These are the full headers. (Sorry, did not realise all emails get redacted)
https://pastebin.com/Z6hkL9hD
the mails didn't get redacted. The headers are quoted even on the pastebin
example.
and the non-forwared mail header too:
These are the full headers. (Sorry, did not realise all emails get redacted)
https://pastebin.com/Z6hkL9hD
and the non-forwared mail header too:
https://pastebin.com/WGM0aYrh
Does not look like SRS (but a good readup, something learned again).
I really don't get this. The spf record for
11 matches
Mail list logo