On 1/9/2023 3:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Until I can get around to updating I'm considering just nuking the
actual tests from the ruleset.
Much easier and reliable way:
dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org
Charles Sprickman skrev den 2023-01-09 08:04:
Trying this on half the
Until I can get around to updating I'm considering just nuking
the actual tests from the ruleset.
Much easier and reliable way:
dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org
Charles Sprickman skrev den 2023-01-09 08:04:
Trying this on half the pair, I assume this hits all subdomains of
Charles Sprickman skrev den 2023-01-09 08:04:
Until I can get around to updating I'm considering just nuking the
actual tests from the ruleset.
Much easier and reliable way:
dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org
Trying this on half the pair, I assume this hits all subdomains of
> On Jan 8, 2023, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 04:23:11PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>> What did you end up with?
>>
>> I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the
>> "administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
>>
>> The fact that those guys
> On Jan 8, 2023, at 10:44 PM, joe a wrote:
>
> On 1/8/2023 4:23 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>> What did you end up with?
>
> score RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS 0
>
> I am not certain if that stops the test or simply reporting of the message.
> Looks like I will need to do some packet
On 1/8/2023 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 04:23:11PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
. . .
# remove spamhaus tests,. . .
score RCVD_IN_SBL 0
score RCVD_IN_XBL 0
score RCVD_IN_PBL 0
score URIBL_SBL 0
score URIBL_CSS 0
score URIBL_SBL_A 0. . .
Much easier and reliable way:
On 1/8/2023 4:38 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
joe a skrev den 2023-01-08 21:50:
SA version 3.4.5
Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things.
Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book"
what book ?
The good one? Several places. Most looked like cut
On 1/8/2023 4:23 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
What did you end up with?
score RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS 0
I am not certain if that stops the test or simply reporting of the
message. Looks like I will need to do some packet capture after all.
I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet
On 1/8/2023 4:00 PM, joe a wrote:
On 1/8/2023 3:50 PM, joe a wrote:
SA version 3.4.5
Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things.
Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book"
When placing these values in local.cf:
RCVD_IN_ZEN 0
RCVD_IN_XBL 0
On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 04:23:11PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> What did you end up with?
>
> I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the
> "administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
>
> The fact that those guys don't just send out a "yes, this is on by default in
>
Charles Sprickman skrev den 2023-01-08 22:23:
What did you end up with?
I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the
"administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
The fact that those guys don't just send out a "yes, this is on by
default in spamassassin, here is copy pasta to turn
joe a skrev den 2023-01-08 21:50:
SA version 3.4.5
Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things.
Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book"
what book ?
When placing these values in local.cf:
RCVD_IN_ZEN 0
RCVD_IN_XBL 0
RCVD_IN_PBL 0
"spamassassin
What did you end up with?
I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the
"administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
The fact that those guys don't just send out a "yes, this is on by default in
spamassassin, here is copy pasta to turn us off" email bugs me.
I've grown to this
On 1/8/2023 3:50 PM, joe a wrote:
SA version 3.4.5
Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things.
Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book"
When placing these values in local.cf:
RCVD_IN_ZEN 0
RCVD_IN_XBL 0
RCVD_IN_PBL 0
"spamassassin --lint"
SA version 3.4.5
Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things.
Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book"
When placing these values in local.cf:
RCVD_IN_ZEN 0
RCVD_IN_XBL 0
RCVD_IN_PBL 0
"spamassassin --lint" complains. Yet SA starts without
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/23/20 9:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Did you see my mention of this earlier?
Yes, I did see it.
That's a bit more invasive of a change than I was hoping to do for this task.
I had been waiting to reply to your earlier message to test some things
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/23/20 2:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
spamass-milter has a -u flag for a username to pass to SA. If these are
single-recipient messages that may be enough to reliably tie into per-user
config to disable the RBL check.
It seems as if spamass-milter
On 12/22/20 4:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
Thank you all.
I believe I have been able to get the result I desired and learn a few
things in the process.
TL;DR: Setting scores to 0 in the specific recipient's
~/.spamassassin
On 12/23/20 9:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Did you see my mention of this earlier?
Yes, I did see it.
That's a bit more invasive of a change than I was hoping to do for this
task.
I had been waiting to reply to your earlier message to test some things
that you recommended.
As you will see
On 12/23/20 2:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
spamass-milter has a -u flag for a username to pass to SA. If these are
single-recipient messages that may be enough to reliably tie into
per-user config to disable the RBL check.
It seems as if spamass-milter is using the -u to specify a default user.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, Grant Taylor wrote:
That's all considerably more complicated than I'm comfortable with at the
moment.
Did you see my mention of this earlier?
https://milter-manager.osdn.jp/reference/introduction.html
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On 12/23/20 2:21 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
You definitely would know if it were.
One would think.
My head is in a different project at the moment, and I can't tell you
exactly how things are configured without going back and looking.
/If/ things are configured to load per user settings from
On 12/23/20 3:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
- In my case I run every message through SA, diverting spam into a
quarantine directory and passing the rest to Postfix for delivery.
I don't quarantine anything on this system.
Spam is tagged if the score is between 5 and 15.
Spam is rejected
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:01:25 -0600 (CST)
Dave Funk wrote:
> Because it's assumed that DNS related stuff may take some time those
> rules (if configured to run) are launched early in the processing of
> a message.
A couple of years ago some changes were made to support RBLS being
short-circuited
On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 20:44 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Fhis requirement is almost exactly rgew opposite of something I've been
running for years:
- In my case I run every message through SA, diverting spam into
a quarantine directory and passing the rest to Postfix for delivery.
- In your
Bill Cole wrote:
On 23 Dec 2020, at 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/22/20 11:03 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Do you have a setup that supports per-user preferences? e.g.: real
system accounts.
Sort of. The recipient is a real Unix account. However I don't think
my milter is configured to use
On 23 Dec 2020, at 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/22/20 11:03 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Do you have a setup that supports per-user preferences? e.g.: real
system accounts.
Sort of. The recipient is a real Unix account. However I don't think
my milter is configured to use per recipient
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, Grant Taylor wrote:
I have about 2,000 messages a day that come in to my mail server for all
recipients with the exception of one specific (set of) recipient(s). That
(set of) recipient(s) receive 20,000 - 30,000 messages a day. They are very
specific messages for an
On 12/23/20 1:37 PM, Dave Funk wrote:
If all you want is for a particular class of recipients (at the envelope
RCPT level) not be passed to spamass-milter inside sendmail that can be
done with a bit of hacking of your sendmail config and the milter.
Please elaborate.
I'm not opposed to
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, Grant Taylor wrote:
Context is Sendmail, spamass-milter, and SpamAssassin (spamd).
I didn't see any way to have spamass-milter bypass, much less conditionally
bypass. Nor did I see a way to have Sendmail conditionally bypass a milter.
If all you want is for a
@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Bypass RBL checks for specific
address That may not work for what the OP wanted.Because it's assumed that DNS
related stuff may take some time those rules (if configured to run) are
launched early in the processing of a message.So if the OP wants to completely
avoid
s all over the world."
if you want to disable one single recipient want all spam, then use
all_spam_to in local.cf
As indicated elsewhere, using all_spam_to seems to still apply all
normal filtering, including RBL checks, which I'm wanting to avoid.
(See my reply to Dave F.'s messag
checks (as opposed to
just ignoring their scores/results) he may need to do some special tricks.
Yes, I want to completely avoid running the RBL checks for specific
recipients.
One thing would be to have a separate SA instance with its own
configuration which has the RBL stuff removed
That may not work for what the OP wanted.
Because it's assumed that DNS related stuff may take some time those rules (if
configured to run) are launched early in the processing of a message.
So if the OP wants to completely avoid running RBL checks (as opposed to just
ignoring their scores
On 2020-12-23 19:59, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/22/20 11:56 PM, Axb wrote:
I'm wanting to not run RBL tests for the specific recipient email
address.
you will for this specifik task need a custom plugin in spamassassin
if you just want to disable rbl test then add the ip to trusted_networks
: 12/23/20 20:59 (GMT+02:00) To:
users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Bypass RBL checks for specific
address On 12/22/20 11:56 PM, Axb wrote:> whitelist_to ?My understanding is
that whitelist_to, more_spam_to, and all_spam_to behave the same way and
effectively just alter the scor
On 2020-12-23 19:56, Grant Taylor wrote:
Response Policy Zone(s) are neat and can do a LOT of things. But I
don't think it's proper for my task at hand.
if you want to disable RBL for one single ip, then add it to
trusted_networks in local.cf
if you want to disable one single recipient
On 12/22/20 11:56 PM, Axb wrote:
whitelist_to ?
My understanding is that whitelist_to, more_spam_to, and all_spam_to
behave the same way and effectively just alter the scoring offset.
It seems as if the tests are still run, and it's just the score is
artificially offset based on which
On 12/22/20 11:03 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Do you have a setup that supports per-user preferences? e.g.: real
system accounts.
Sort of. The recipient is a real Unix account. However I don't think
my milter is configured to use per recipient filtering.
If so, you can disable off individual
Hi Rob,
On 12/22/20 6:40 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
First, I'm NOT an expert on all of this - so somebody might be able to
follow up with BETTER information, but this will hopefully point you in
the right direction.
Fair enough.
Really big snip.
First, I agree with and like your idea. For an
whitelist_to ?
On 12/23/20 12:56 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
On 22 Dec 2020, at 18:56, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
Do you have a setup
On 12/22/2020 6:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address? I've tried
the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially lowers the
score and still runs normal tests. I'd like to disable RBL checks for
one address.
Grant,
First, I'm
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:51:49 +
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
The two calculations produce the same result when
Ns2/Nh2 = (Ns2-Ns1)/(Nh2-Nh1)
i.e. if spam and ham is being added in the same ratio that it occurs
in the database.
On 21.03.15 22:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Yup,
Hi,
I think it seldom pays to be too clever with Bayes. If (and this is a
big if) you have a large enough sample of mail, in our experience it's
better just to shovel it all into Bayes than to be selective about
what you present to Bayes. The Bayes algorithms are usually pretty
good at
Am 22.03.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Alex Regan:
Would it be helpful to have something that graphs the data to monitor
the effect of learning changes? Does something already exist?
i am doing something similar recently by one per night iterate through
all ham/spam smaples to get a overview how
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:44:26 -0400
Alex Regan mysqlstud...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
So instead of trying to figure out the proper expiry period, you just
start over completely every two weeks?
No, we use a two-week sliding window to construct our Bayes DB. We don't learn
for two weeks and
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:08:23 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
Bayes expiry is a tricky thing. To do expiry in a way that can be
justified mathematically, you really should expire messages, not
individual tokens. Otherwise, you're skewing the probabilities.
The only token probabilities that can
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:10:19 +
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
The only token probabilities that can be skewed by token expiry are
those than get expired and are then subsequently relearned.
Yup. But they might turn out to be important.
Even then when those tokens are relearned the
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:13:13 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:10:19 +
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
The only token probabilities that can be skewed by token expiry are
those than get expired and are then subsequently relearned.
Yup. But they might turn out
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:51:49 +
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
The two calculations produce the same result when
Ns2/Nh2 = (Ns2-Ns1)/(Nh2-Nh1)
i.e. if spam and ham is being added in the same ratio that it occurs
in the database.
Yup, that's correct; I got it wrong by extrapolating
On 20.03.15 09:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
why would you want poems or cooking recipes trained as spam?
and why not? they still may contain stuff that helps differ spam from ham,
you never know...
once I have trained spam report as ham, extracted the original spam and
trained that one as spam.
Am 20.03.2015 um 11:40 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 20.03.15 09:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
why would you want poems or cooking recipes trained as spam?
and why not?
i think i have explained it often enough now
they still may contain stuff that helps differ spam from ham,
you never
Am 19.03.2015 um 23:52 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:46:10 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 20:35 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:12:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
the last point is easy to prove by having the old, unmodified
corpus and run spamc against the cleaned
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:09:29 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
And I've heard arguments for and against removing the poisoning
information. YMMV.
I think it seldom pays to be too clever with Bayes. If (and this is a
big if) you have a large enough sample of mail, in our
Hi,
On 03/20/2015 06:50 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.03.2015 um 11:40 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 20.03.15 09:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
why would you want poems or cooking recipes trained as spam?
and why not?
i think i have explained it often enough now
I've heard arguments in
On 3/20/2015 4:58 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
Can someone with some authority (ie, those that wrote it or understand
the code) add some input?
Bayesian token systems are probably the basis for quite a number of
master and doctoral level thesiseseses (whatever the plural of thesis).
Understanding
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:46:10 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 20:35 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:12:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
the last point is easy to prove by having the old, unmodified
corpus and run spamc against the cleaned bayes database and the
final
Am 19.03.2015 um 09:22 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
On 18.03.15 22:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
On 18.03.15 22:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
You apparently mean
On 3/19/15, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 3/19/15, Steve Freegard s...@fsl.com wrote:
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Wow - you must be fun at parties...
HAHAHA reindl doesnt go to parties because , he has no friends
I am getting tired of all of the personal attacks. End it, everyone. Stick to
facts or take it offlist. I don't care which.
Regards,
KAM
Am 19.03.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 3/19/15, Steve Freegard s...@fsl.com wrote:
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Wow - you must be fun at parties...
HAHAHA reindl doesnt go to parties because , he has no friends and no
one would have him, he can start a fight when he's
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
In general you don't want
On 3/19/15, Steve Freegard s...@fsl.com wrote:
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Wow - you must be fun at parties...
HAHAHA reindl doesnt go to parties because , he has no friends and no
one would have him, he can start a fight when he's the only tosser in
the room.
hahahaha come on reindl, do you think people here will bother to click
your links when all they only need do is google reindl harald to
get an unbiased view of who you really are and the sort of offensive
abusive creep you really are.
fedora users BANNED
roundcube MODERATED
postifx BANNED
Am 19.03.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Steve Freegard:
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view
Am 19.03.2015 um 13:09 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 3/19/15, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 3/19/15, Steve Freegard s...@fsl.com wrote:
On 18/03/15 21:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Wow - you must be fun at parties...
HAHAHA reindl
well, i never pretended to be the nicest person on the world but the
difference between both of us is that i *never ever* go out and seek
postings from a specific person and call him/her names without any
context to the thread and technical background just because it's he/her
and in fact i
Last warning. Offlist with these emails or next step is list removal.
Regards,
KAM
On 3/19/15, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
and in fact i was *never ever* that abusive as you are all the time
beause there is a difference in get heatet in a technical discussion or
like you do absue for the sake of abuse
hahahaha thankfulyl google shows otherwise
so you
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
On 18.03.15 22:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
Am 19.03.2015 um 09:22
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:12:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 00:54 schrieb RW:
This is nothing to do with auto-learning. There is a difference
between miss-training and training with spam that contains
so-called Bayes poison. Bayes is best trained on what is in
real-world
Am 19.03.2015 um 20:35 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:12:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 00:54 schrieb RW:
This is nothing to do with auto-learning. There is a difference
between miss-training and training with spam that contains
so-called Bayes poison. Bayes is best
Am 19.03.2015 um 13:53 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
On 18.03.15 22:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS
On 18 Mar 2015, at 17:24, Axb wrote:
Why is Internal or local mail sent thru SA?
If the MTA handles outbound mail from Windows users, passing their mail
through SA is prudent. There are spamming trojans that figure out how to
use the victim's legitimate submission config including
Am 19.03.2015 um 19:48 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 18 Mar 2015, at 17:24, Axb wrote:
Why is Internal or local mail sent thru SA?
If the MTA handles outbound mail from Windows users, passing their mail
through SA is prudent. There are spamming trojans that figure out how to
use the victim's
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on various
bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This appears to
be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on some of thier
internal Zimbra servers. However, when it goes through the MTA, it
Am 19.03.2015 um 00:54 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:13 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posioning from
the samples and rebuild bayes from scratch leading in reduce the
ntokens from 170 to 150
Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posioning from
the samples and rebuild bayes from scratch leading in reduce the
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:13 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 23:34 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:46:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly i trained over months with *hand chosen* mail smaples and
spent nearly two weeks day and night to remove bayes-posioning from
On 03/18/2015 10:39 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:24 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be
On 03/18/2015 10:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
In general you don't
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:58 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 10:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on
some of thier internal Zimbra
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private IPs on
some of thier internal Zimbra
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:24 schrieb Axb:
On 03/18/2015 09:48 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using private
Hi Quanah,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.297 tagged_above=-10 required=10
tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01,
URIBL_BLACK=3.25, URIBL_DBL_SPAM=2.5, URIBL_JP_SURBL=1.25,
URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1, URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.608,
--On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:11 PM +0100 Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
The IP is clearly listed in trusted_networks
your problem are not RBL's
your problem are URIBL's and so mail content
ask yourself why autogenerated mails contains crap URLs listed on
URIBL_BLACK,
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
I noticed that some of the Zimbra auto-generated emails (reports on
various bits) are getting hit with RBL scoring for some customers. This
appears to be because they are (quite reasonably) using
Am 18.03.2015 um 22:29 schrieb David B Funk:
Just have an internal mail-submission port that isn't routed thru SA
may not be possible if you have hundrets of domains without setup a
internal DNS view just for a different MX
In general you don't want auto-mail running thru SA for this
On 11/5/2012 at 6:44 PM, Joseph Acquisto j...@j4computers.com wrote:
On 11/5/2012 at 10:34 AM, Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com wrote:
On 11/4/2012 10:10 PM, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
On 11/4/2012 at 4:09 PM, Jari Fredriksson ja...@iki.fi wrote:
04.11.2012 22:33, Joseph Acquisto kirjoitti:
I'd
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
OMG I am SO DUMB - I had skip_rbl_checks set in my personal
userconf. DUH.
(nod) Thanks for posting the full logs for both messages.
Once the problem is properly defined, the solution is usually
not too hard to find (though occasionally embarrassing
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
Did you look at the logs you posted?
NONE of the DNS tests are being launched on msg 26661
Yes, that is the problem. They run with `spamassassin`, but
they do not run from `spamd`.
Do other
OMG I am SO DUMB - I had skip_rbl_checks set in my personal
userconf. DUH.
Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions - actually it
was working fine from the beginning.
Mark
Analysis 101:
. the rule is correctly loaded, but not run when scanned
but run when I put the message through the command line.
Did you look at the logs you posted?
NONE of the DNS tests are being launched on msg 26661
Also, for that message, there are a suspicious set of entries
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
Did you look at the logs you posted?
NONE of the DNS tests are being launched on msg 26661
Yes, that is the problem. They run with `spamassassin`, but
they do not run from `spamd`.
Do other people see this running `spamd --debug`,
although it
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
