Re: New URL shortener

2019-06-06 Thread Amir Caspi
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 FWIW there is a long list of url shorteners as part of the DecodeShortURLs plugin (sadly, no longer maintained), here:

New URL shortener

2019-06-06 Thread Kenneth Porter
I'm seeing a lot of fake DHL delivery notices using the shortener smarturl.it. I suggest adding it to __URL_SHORTENER.

Re: perl core dumping

2019-06-06 Thread @lbutlr
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

Re: Optimum Number of Spamd Children

2019-06-06 Thread Kris Deugau
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

plugin that runs only if specific rule has triggered before...

2019-06-06 Thread Pedro David Marco
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.

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
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

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread RW
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 >

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
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 -

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread MarcelM
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

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
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:

Re: SPF Fail for Amazon mails, although mail headers say its a pass

2019-06-06 Thread MarcelM
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