Sidney Markowitz wrote on 4/01/23 8:47 pm:
There's a typo, which must just be in your email since postgres won't
accept it, that should be =+ not +=
I am not expert it SQL :)
Further testing reveals that there is no auto-increment operator in
postgres or SQLite SQL, neither += nor =+
The
Benny Pedersen wrote on 4/01/23 11:00 am:
https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/SQLBasedAddrList.pm#L289
$sql .= " ON CONFLICT (username, email, signedby, ip) DO UPDATE set
msgcount = ?, totscore += ?";
confirm is from my side needed it would fix it, i atleast
Ángel wrote on 4/01/23 2:59 pm:
On 2023-01-04 at 10:24 +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
If anyone else reading this is using 4.0.0 and postgres for AWL, are
you seeing or not seeing this problem?
I can easily reproduce this with a quick install and manually providing
the SQL from the code
nfirm is from my side needed it would fix it, i atleast like to
> think it does
A += doesn't (neccesarily) fix it. Perhaps it works on an higher
version.
postgres=# insert into awl (username, email, ip, signedby) values ('john',
'jsm...@example.com', '127.0.0.1', '-') ON CONFLICT (username, emai
On 2023-01-04 at 10:24 +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> If anyone else reading this is using 4.0.0 and postgres for AWL, are
> you seeing or not seeing this problem?
I can easily reproduce this with a quick install and manually providing
the SQL from the code (output included below). Post
On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 00:43 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> i have dumped all i have in posgres without data so only structure is
> here
>
> https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/WJmDq7xc/spamassassin_dump_tables%20only.txt
>
> dont know what package means on gentoo, its stable versions i
Martin Gregorie skrev den 2023-01-03 23:43:
On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 10:24 +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote on 4/01/23 3:19 am:
If anyone else reading this is using 4.0.0 and postgres for AWL, are
you
seeing or not seeing this problem?
I use Postgresql, though not with SA.
I
On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 10:24 +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Benny Pedersen wrote on 4/01/23 3:19 am:
>
> If anyone else reading this is using 4.0.0 and postgres for AWL, are
> you
> seeing or not seeing this problem?
>
I use Postgresql, though not with SA.
I agree wi
Sidney Markowitz skrev den 2023-01-03 22:24:
Benny Pedersen wrote on 4/01/23 3:19 am:
https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/SQLBasedAddrList.pm#L310
imho this line
I agree, but I don't see from looking at that line how the SQL query
can have more than one
of what
"column reference is ambiguous" means I don't see how a query with one
table in it can get a column reference is ambiguous error.
If you can't get the full dbg line, perhaps someone who actually uses
SQL based awl might be able to jump in here, that's the limit of what
I can figur
statement that has a column named "totscore" and so where the command
references "totscore" without using a syntax like tablename.totscore
to specify which table it means is ambiguous.
However, I don't see any definition of a table with a column named
totscore other than t
score" and so where the command
references "totscore" without using a syntax like tablename.totscore to
specify which table it means is ambiguous.
However, I don't see any definition of a table with a column named
totscore other than the one in table "awl" that you link
>
> https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/sql/awl_pg.sql#L6
>
> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/wRkT4AeI/awl.sql
>
> how to solve it ?
https://notepad.ltd/asdf23423asdfasdf ;)
https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/sql/awl_pg.sql#L6
https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/wRkT4AeI/awl.sql
how to solve it ?
tended (TM). I've not set txrep_autolearn on yet, will
monitor for a while.
Simon
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 3:04 AM Simon Wilson wrote:
- Message from John Hardin -
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Hardin
Subject: Re: AWL on 3.4
:
> - Message from John Hardin -
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Hardin
> Subject: Re: AWL on 3.4
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, Simon Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I've just migrated and u
- Message from John Hardin -
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Hardin
Subject: Re: AWL on 3.4
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, Simon Wilson wrote:
I've just migrated and updated to SA 3.4, and have moved the Bayes
db
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:36:05 +1000
Simon Wilson wrote:
> I've just migrated and updated to SA 3.4, and have moved the Bayes db
> to Redis. I used to use AWL but don't think the module is loaded in
> 3.4, am I correct?
It's just a matter of uncommenting the line in v310.pre
I do
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, Simon Wilson wrote:
I've just migrated and updated to SA 3.4, and have moved the Bayes db to
Redis. I used to use AWL but don't think the module is loaded in 3.4, am I
correct?
There seems to be mixed commentary online about whether to enable it - I'll
leave it off
I've just migrated and updated to SA 3.4, and have moved the Bayes db
to Redis. I used to use AWL but don't think the module is loaded in
3.4, am I correct?
There seems to be mixed commentary online about whether to enable it -
I'll leave it off for a few weeks and see how it goes, but am
On 18.10.2019 17.41, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/17/2019 2:30 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Just a side note: AWL is deprecated and replaced by TXREP which works in
similar fashion but better,
Just read through the man page for TXREP, which looks pretty interesting. I'm
thinking
On 10/17/2019 2:30 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> Just a side note: AWL is deprecated and replaced by TXREP which works in
> similar fashion but better,
>
Just read through the man page for TXREP, which looks pretty interesting. I'm
thinking of switching my system over. Is t
On 16.10.2019 16.19, John Schmerold wrote:
Is the AWL score generated based on the experience of my server, or are
other external sources feeding AWL?
I have a client, they sent me an email, they were dinged with an AWL of
3.575, my SA server was configured a couple days ago, so it hasn't had
On 16 Oct 2019, at 9:19, John Schmerold wrote:
Is the AWL score generated based on the experience of my server, or
are other external sources feeding AWL?
AWL is entirely local. The keys are tuples of the first 3 octets of the
client IP and the sender address.
On a new server
Is the AWL score generated based on the experience of my server, or are
other external sources feeding AWL?
I have a client, they sent me an email, they were dinged with an AWL of
3.575, my SA server was configured a couple days ago, so it hasn't had
much time to auto-learn much of anything
On 24/10/16 16:46, John Hardin wrote:
Paul:
I haven't looked at the plugin myself yet, but here's a suggestion:
have a mode where you can mark a RE as capturing a numeric value, and
the rule's hit value is the value that the RE captured. This would
(for example) let the AWL/TXREP mean
On 24/10/16 16:46, John Hardin wrote:
Paul:
I haven't looked at the plugin myself yet, but here's a suggestion:
have a mode where you can mark a RE as capturing a numeric value, and
the rule's hit value is the value that the RE captured. This would
(for example) let the AWL/TXREP mean
s capturing a numeric value, and the rule's
hit value is the value that the RE captured. This would (for example) let
the AWL/TXREP mean be captured in a way it could be compared using gt/lt
in a meta. Perhaps:
tagcapnum __TXREP_IP_MEAN_TXREP_IP_MEAN_ /^(-?[\d]+(?:\.\d+
065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123131.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
> I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
> adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
> SA *could* potenti
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average
On 21/10/16 18:53, Paul Stead wrote:
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^\-[0-9]{2,}(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE TxRep mean score quite low
scoreTAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE -0.1
Also - typo on score rulename!
--
Paul Stead
Systems Engineer
Zen
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
A plugin I've developed could be handy here:
https://github.com/fmbla/spamassassin-tagmatch
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^[1-9][0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE TXRep mean score quite large
score
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average that AWL uses...
I suggest you file
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Axb wrote:
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive SA
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Kevin Golding wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:41 +0100, simplerezo <simpler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not,
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive
SA content scanning and save time &
their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
The problem with using the AWL or TxRep databases for this is that they
cut both ways and are TOO automatic. This is a legitimate need that
lacks a really good solution inside SpamAssassin because it needs to
draw on end-user knowledge to exempt specific
On 10/21/2016 6:48 AM, simplerezo wrote:
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
Absolutely.
very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails
On 20/10/16 17:44, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ?
Is based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of learning,
it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
Looks really interesting. How it behaves in ipv6
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:48:41 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> > it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false
> > negative.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
>
> That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) >
> it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
Absolutely.
> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zip
a
On 20.10.16 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive.
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
That's
exactly what I wa
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding is that AWL is h
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their
On 10/20/2016 06:44 PM, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ? Is
based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of
learning, it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
http://saplugin.16mb.com/
If you mean your OW
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exac
Bologna - Italia
Tel. +39 051.6079.293
Cell. +39 328.21.73.470
Web: www.gruppocomet.it
-Messaggio originale-
Da: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
Inviato: giovedì 20 ottobre 2016 18:36
A: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Oggetto: Re: Custom rule based on AWL score
On Thu, 20 Oct
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: ad
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:34:04 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are
> known to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive.
Which is why I pointed you towards a short paragraph that describ
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
> to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding
> score for mail wit
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive. That's
exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding score for mail with
"invoice" pretention and an attachment but only fo
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:01:17 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.
>
> AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice
> for us to put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users
Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.
AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice for us to
put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users (example:
"invoices" ...).
--
View this message in context:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:55:29 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score?
No
> We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for
> "well-known" contacts...
Why not just whitelist them?
Hi,
Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score?
We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for "well-known"
contacts...
I tried this:
metaSR__AWL ( AWL <= -1 )
describeSR__AWL AWL is at least -1
score SR__AWL
Good day!
You were completely right: after I added '-u debian-spamd' (this user was
automatically created at the time of package installation) to the spamd
start string in the /etc/default/spamassassin AWL started working right as
expected. The database is now filled almost as expected
t passes the message to the spamd by calling a
locally installed (i.e. installed on the same host where Exim is) spamc
binary with the following command: "spamc -F /etc/spamc/spamc.conf -u
$local_part@$domain". Unfortunately, I am still unable to get this setup
working properly with AWL
y, I am
> still unable to get this setup working properly with AWL, as username
> in the AWL table is set to "nobody".
Running spamd without -u is intended to support unix account users. In
this case the spamd child process drops its privileges from root to the
user running
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:21:44 +0300
? wrote:
> I'm using Spamassassin 3.4.0 on Debian Jessie and trying to set up AWL
> stored in SQL on a per-user basis. My setup is as follows:
>
> 1) Spamassassin is run as 'spamd' on behalf of user root, the options
> strin
I'm using Spamassassin 3.4.0 on Debian Jessie and trying to set up AWL
stored in SQL on a per-user basis. My setup is as follows:
1) Spamassassin is run as 'spamd' on behalf of user root, the options
string is as follows:
OPTIONS="-D --create-prefs -x -q -Q --max-children 5 --helper-home-d
On 12/23/2015 2:09 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
i ve read some bug reports , any recent news to this ?
Unfortunately, no. Bug at
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164 has gruesome
details.
Regards,
KAM
tests=[AWL=20.375,
FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001,
CLASSIC_SUJET_GENERAL_1=2.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
this mail is a very simple mail.
What is AWL ? why score is very big ?
thanks
Olivier
AWL is a poorly-named and deprecated module
Hi
i have installed a new server on Centos with Postfix/Amavisd and
SpamAssassin
my problems, 90% of mail are tagged spam:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 22.876
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=22.876 required=5.0 tests=[AWL=20.375,
FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001
Am 23.12.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 23.12.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Olivier CALVANO:
>> Thanks, i clear the AWL and now it's good
>> thanks
>>
>> for TxRep, do you know where i can find this module and the
>> documentation ?
>
Am 23.12.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Olivier CALVANO:
Thanks, i clear the AWL and now it's good
thanks
for TxRep, do you know where i can find this module and the documentation ?
enter "TxRep" in google leads to
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TxRep
[root@localhost:~]$ locate
What version of spamassassin are you using as it was added to the standard
package.
You might have better luck with trunk or waiting for 3.4.2.
Regards,
KAM
On December 23, 2015 11:33:21 AM EST, Olivier CALVANO <o.calv...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Thanks, i clear the AWL and now it's goo
Thanks, i clear the AWL and now it's good
thanks
for TxRep, do you know where i can find this module and the documentation ?
2015-12-23 16:57 GMT+01:00 Joe Quinn <jqu...@pccc.com>:
> On 12/23/2015 10:53 AM, Olivier CALVANO wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> i have in
On 12/12/15 23:43, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On December 12, 2015 8:33:28 PM Sebastian Arcus <s.ar...@open-t.co.uk>
wrote:
I guess I must be using the default settings - as I don't think I've
configured anything in particular for AWL
change default /16 cidr to new default /24 for ipv4, fo
On 12/12/15 19:57, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> One of my servers received a spam message which SA missed, with
the > following report:
> &g
Sebastian Arcus skrev den 2015-12-12 12:51:
Why
would AWL now tilt things heavily towards ham, after the message has
just been learned as spam?
its how AWL works
It seems to be making things worse instead
of better. Unless I am misunderstanding what AWL is supposed to be
doing?
what
Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.sf.net/)
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable
relay lines
-0.4 AWLAWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of
From: address
After learning the messages as spam into bayes with sa-learn, I get the
following report
On 12/12/15 13:06, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Sebastian Arcus skrev den 2015-12-12 12:51:
Why
would AWL now tilt things heavily towards ham, after the message has
just been learned as spam?
its how AWL works
It seems to be making things worse instead
of better. Unless I am misunderstanding
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
One of my servers received a spam message which SA missed, with the following
report:
-0.4 AWLAWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
address
After learning the messages as spam into bayes with sa-learn, I get
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> One of my servers received a spam message which SA missed, with the
> following report:
>
> -0.4 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AW
On 12/12/15 18:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
One of my servers received a spam message which SA missed, with the
following report:
-0.4 AWLAWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation
of From: address
After learning the messages as spam
On December 12, 2015 8:33:28 PM Sebastian Arcus <s.ar...@open-t.co.uk> wrote:
I guess I must be using the default settings - as I don't think I've
configured anything in particular for AWL
change default /16 cidr to new default /24 for ipv4, for ipv6 use /64, if
you like to track
On 4/30/15, 12:16 AM, Tom Robinson tom.robin...@motec.com.au wrote:
BTW, where can I see the results of my configuration changes? It would be
nice to confirm that my
changes have rectified the situation.
On the server (via SSH or console) use the +trace argument to dig, and
then look for lines
). If you fix this chances are you get scores
high enough to compensate/correct AWL.
On 30.04.15 12:10, Tom Robinson wrote:
I have the mail server and a separate name server set up in a DMZ. The name
server already runs as a caching nameserver but does forwarding to our ISP.
I'm not sure how the non
On 4/30/15, 12:16 AM, Tom Robinson tom.robin...@motec.com.au wrote:
BTW, where can I see the results of my configuration changes? It would be
nice to confirm that my
changes have rectified the situation.
On 30.04.15 01:38, Dave Pooser wrote:
On the server (via SSH or console) use the +trace
On the server (via SSH or console) use the +trace argument to dig, and
then look for lines starting with ';;':
postmstr@smtp:~$ dig +trace example.com.multi.uribl.com | grep ';;'
;; global options: +cmd
;; Received 913 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 8 ms
;; Received 760 bytes from
Am 30.04.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 4/30/15, 12:16 AM, Tom Robinson tom.robin...@motec.com.au wrote:
BTW, where can I see the results of my configuration changes? It
would be
nice to confirm that my
changes have rectified the situation.
On 30.04.15 01:38, Dave Pooser
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-04-30 12:55:
no, it's the dig command that does the trace, not the nameserver.
This says nothing about your nameserver configuration, and it can't
since
nameserver does not provide that info.
dig respects resolv.conf with nameserver 127.0.0.1
try it :)
On 4/30/15, 5:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
no, it's the dig command that does the trace, not the nameserver.
This says nothing about your nameserver configuration, and it can't since
nameserver does not provide that info.
I stand corrected-- I had tested on another
Am 30.04.2015 um 17:06 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-04-30 12:55:
no, it's the dig command that does the trace, not the nameserver.
This says nothing about your nameserver configuration, and it can't since
nameserver does not provide that info.
dig respects
in awl since its recorded before
with a diff spam score on the same ips
to solve it completely remove ALL forwards in your nameserver, and ONLY
use forward pr zone as needed, thus do not use forward in options
section in named.conf with is global fault :=)
i have seen domains that blocked my
Tom Robinson skrev den 2015-04-30 04:35:
Finally that makes sense. I will add the forwarding in as per the
documentation.
remove forwarding is safe, only use forward dns on zones you self build
or have rsync access to
Hi,
Below is the source from an email that is clearly spam but the AWL is -1.3
defeating the spam classification. How can I best adjust the AWL to get this
classified as SPAM.
Kind regards,
Tom
--
Tom Robinson
IT Manager/System Administrator
MoTeC Pty Ltd
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon
Tom Robinson skrev den 2015-04-30 01:38:
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL
was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
did you read the url here ?
well if yes, show your AWL config
Hi,
Besides your awl problem, you have other problems.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
On 30/04/15 09:56, Marieke Janssen wrote:
Hi,
Besides your awl problem, you have other problems.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin
On 30/04/15 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/29/2015 10:10 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
I have the mail server and a separate name server set up in a DMZ. The name
server already runs as a
caching nameserver but does forwarding to our ISP.
Hi Tom,
Your ISP is doing too many queries to the
ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL
was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
did you read the url here ?
well if yes, show your AWL config for the AWL plugin
Actually, looking for this config I can't seem
On 4/29/2015 10:10 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
I have the mail server and a separate name server set up in a DMZ. The name
server already runs as a
caching nameserver but does forwarding to our ISP.
Hi Tom,
Your ISP is doing too many queries to the services exceeding free
limits. You are being
Am 30.04.2015 um 07:16 schrieb Tom Robinson:
On 30/04/15 15:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.04.2015 um 04:10 schrieb Tom Robinson:
Is it correct that currently, because I'm forwarding, the DNSBL query is
denied because the DNSBL server thinks I'm the ISP making a query? Sorry, I'm
not
Am 30.04.2015 um 04:10 schrieb Tom Robinson:
I have the mail server and a separate name server set up in a DMZ. The name
server already runs as a
caching nameserver but does forwarding to our ISP
don't do that when you are running mailservers or for whateverer reason
rely on trustable
Am 30.04.2015 um 04:10 schrieb Tom Robinson:
Is it correct that currently, because I'm forwarding, the DNSBL query is
denied because the DNSBL server thinks I'm the ISP making a query? Sorry, I'm
not understanding the
mechanism
it is the ISP making the query for you and thousands of other
On 30/04/15 15:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.04.2015 um 04:10 schrieb Tom Robinson:
Is it correct that currently, because I'm forwarding, the DNSBL query is
denied because the DNSBL server thinks I'm the ISP making a query? Sorry,
I'm not understanding the
mechanism
it is the ISP making
Ok Thanks for the answer :)
Marco
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:58:15 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
On 4/17/2015 6:46 AM, ma...@nucleus.it wrote:
Hi to all,
a saw that from spamassassin 3.4 Bayes can be stored on a Redis
database.
Is it possible also for Awl
On 4/17/2015 7:58 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/17/2015 6:46 AM, ma...@nucleus.it wrote:
Hi to all,
a saw that from spamassassin 3.4 Bayes can be stored on a Redis
database.
Is it possible also for Awl (auto_whitelist) ?
Or maybe in the future ?
We are currently looking at TxRep
1 - 100 of 981 matches
Mail list logo
