SendGrid (Was: Re: Freshdesk (again))

2020-06-26 Thread Andy Smith
Hello, On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 07:32:09PM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: > I've got to say, between NANOG, SDLU, and SpamAssassin, I see a LOT of > complaints about Sendgrid. Also mailop. Have personally received phishing mails through SendGrid in the last 2 weeks in the name of citrix.com,

Re: Freshdesk (again)

2020-06-26 Thread Grant Taylor
On 6/26/20 7:01 PM, Bill Cole wrote: I had a similar event 6/30 and poked them about it via both a public Tweet & a complaint to Sendgrid. Both entities responded *claiming* that they were looking into the problem. Assuming that yours also came via Sendgrid, it might help to add your complaint

Re: Freshdesk (again)

2020-06-26 Thread Bill Cole
On 26 Jun 2020, at 20:44, Grant Taylor wrote: I received an automated email from Freshdesk about five minutes after my post to the SpamAssassin mailing list earlier this afternoon. I had a similar event 6/30 and poked them about it via both a public Tweet & a complaint to Sendgrid. Both

Freshdesk (again)

2020-06-26 Thread Grant Taylor
I received an automated email from Freshdesk about five minutes after my post to the SpamAssassin mailing list earlier this afternoon. I found an old thread about Freshdesk in the SpamAssassin Users archive [1]. This supports (confirms to me) that this is what happens. I object to this type

Re: White listing messages processed by a previous milter

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 00:46 +0200, Marc Roos wrote: > > What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages > that have already been processed by a previous milter. > If you've already whitelisted a message and want it to bypass SA, then you will, by definition, have total

Re: White listing messages processed by a previous milter

2020-06-26 Thread Grant Taylor
On 6/26/20 4:46 PM, Marc Roos wrote: What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages that have already been processed by a previous milter. I'm confused. My knee jerk reaction is that's an MTA configuration issue. But I don't think it can be that simple. I can't think

White listing messages processed by a previous milter

2020-06-26 Thread Marc Roos
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages that have already been processed by a previous milter. Maybe set a message header and whitelist on this message header?

Re: very slow scans

2020-06-26 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 6/25/2020 4:13 PM, Paul wrote: > I'm running SA version 3.4.4 on a Synology NAS/server (which runs a > fairly limited Linux install) with 1G of RAM, using its basic > spamd/spamc setup. I have network tests and Bayes temporarily > disabled, and no custom rules, and my RAM and CPU are both under

Re: sa-update failing

2020-06-26 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
Stephan, The type for the update record is a TXT not an A record, so dig -t txt 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. I'm not sure if an update has failed for the past 2 days though so this is just a comment on how to check manually. ;; ANSWER SECTION: 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 3600 IN TXT

Re: sa-update failing

2020-06-26 Thread Henrik K
It queries TXT records $ dig TXT 2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 3424 IN CNAME 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 79 IN TXT "1879105" It is normal that updates might be stale for a few days sometimes. Use

sa-update failing

2020-06-26 Thread Stephan Fourie
Hi everyone, Our SpamAssassin rules have not gotten any recent updates (looks like past 2 days). When investigating, sa-update tries to connect to: 2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org When doing a DNS lookup on this hostname it appears to be a CNAME which points to: