Daniel J McDonald wrote the following on 6/15/2007 3:37 PM -0800:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 15:27 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote the following on 6/15/2007 2:54 PM -0800:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:08 +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
And a few others... Might as well be complet
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 15:27 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Daniel J McDonald wrote the following on 6/15/2007 2:54 PM -0800:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:08 +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
> >
> > And a few others... Might as well be completely consistent. Try this
> > patch:
> > --- Botnet.pm.orig
Daniel J McDonald wrote the following on 6/15/2007 2:54 PM -0800:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:08 +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
Bill,
The problem is that Botnet uses Net::DNS::Resolver's default retry and
timeout values, which are way too high.
Spamassassin's DnsResolver.pm uses these values:
u
John Rudd wrote the following on 6/15/2007 3:00 PM -0800:
Bill Landry wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if John Rudd is still supporting Botnet or not,
since I have sent him 3 e-mails to the address listed in Botnet.pm
off-list over the past week about this, and asked him if he would
consider addin
John Rudd wrote:
Bill Landry wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if John Rudd is still supporting Botnet or not,
since I have sent him 3 e-mails to the address listed in Botnet.pm
off-list over the past week about this, and asked him if he would
consider adding user configurable timeout values, but h
Bill Landry wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if John Rudd is still supporting Botnet or not, since
I have sent him 3 e-mails to the address listed in Botnet.pm off-list
over the past week about this, and asked him if he would consider adding
user configurable timeout values, but have not received a
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:08 +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
> Bill,
>
> The problem is that Botnet uses Net::DNS::Resolver's default retry and
> timeout values, which are way too high.
>
> Spamassassin's DnsResolver.pm uses these values:
>
> udp_timeout:3
> tcp_timeout:3
> retrans:0
> retry:1
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/15/2007 2:34 PM -0800:
So far so good with Mark's patches - although I am awaiting his
follow-up regarding a possible bug...
Not sure I understand this. My fixes make SA more robust when
plugins misbehave. The Botnet problem still causes the mail
pro
Bill,
> Hmmm, once I patched the correct SA version Dns.pm file, Mark's patches
> worked fine. However, perhaps my error caused Mark to find a bug, as
> noted by his follow-up e-mail, which might have gone undetected
> otherwise. :-)
Indeed, thanks! (but there were two other similar reports as
Randal, Phil wrote the following on 6/15/2007 2:08 PM -0800:
Bill,
The problem is that Botnet uses Net::DNS::Resolver's default retry and
timeout values, which are way too high.
Spamassassin's DnsResolver.pm uses these values:
udp_timeout:3
tcp_timeout:3
retrans:0
retry:1
try
expor
2007 18:18
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: These are getting through SA...
Mark, thanks for the patches. However, even with both Dns.pm patches
applied, unless I set "rbl_timeout" to a high enough time interval, SA
still misses the URIBL test results in the sample messages I
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/15/2007 10:41 AM -0800:
Bill,
There is now an additional patch at:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5511
which should fix this.
Mark, thanks for the patches. However, even with both Dns.pm patches
applied, unless I s
> ...a bug pause here...
bug -> big
(29 seconds)
Bill,
> > There is now an additional patch at:
> > http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5511
> > which should fix this.
> Mark, thanks for the patches. However, even with both Dns.pm patches
> applied, unless I set "rbl_timeout" to a high enough time interval, SA
> still misse
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/15/2007 3:36 AM -0800:
Phil, Bill,
Mark, I patched Dns.pm but this didn't resolve the issue for me.
You can test with the sample messages I posted to bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5506
I was getting this sort
Phil, Bill,
> Mark, I patched Dns.pm but this didn't resolve the issue for me.
> You can test with the sample messages I posted to bugzilla:
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5506
> I was getting this sort of symptom without using Botnet.
> It's almost as if something's dead
Phil,
> What happens if Botnet is patched to use Mail::SpamAssassin::DnsResolver
> instead of Net::DNS::Resolver?
> I'm musuing about Net::DNS::Resolver's default timeouts and retries...
> Phil (probably barking up the wrong tree)
It would do good if Botnet would impose a time limit on its DNS qu
reford, UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 June 2007 23:30
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: These are getting through SA...
>
> Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/12/2007 3:05 PM -0800:
> > Bill,
> >
Bill,
> Mark, I patched Dns.pm but this didn't resolve the issue for me.
> You can test with the sample messages I posted to bugzilla:
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5506
Yes, it is the same problem as I describe in
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?i
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/12/2007 3:05 PM -0800:
Bill,
Mark, just curious if you are running Botnet? I found that some
messages cause the Botnet RDNS test to timeout after hanging for about
30 seconds, and then network test randomly fail (primarily URIBL
tests). I found that i
rg
Subject: Re: These are getting through SA...
Mark, just curious if you are running Botnet? I found that some
messages cause the Botnet RDNS test to timeout after hanging for about
30 seconds, and then network test randomly fail (primarily URIBL
tests). I found that if I disable Botnet
Bill,
> Mark, just curious if you are running Botnet? I found that some
> messages cause the Botnet RDNS test to timeout after hanging for about
> 30 seconds, and then network test randomly fail (primarily URIBL
> tests). I found that if I disable Botnet, then all network tests will
> run fine o
ers,
Phil
-Original Message-
From: Mark Martinec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 June 2007 17:20
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: These are getting through SA...
Luis,
> > Namely with 22 RBL results coming back, the last one
> > (which was the crucial URIBL te
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 6/12/2007 3:53 AM -0800:
Luis,
I don't have any URIBL rules firing up (SA 3.2.0 from source here,
most of the other relevant info is in the header of the mail I sent
before to test). Where did you get them?
[...]
But the main difference between the live r
Luis,
> > Namely with 22 RBL results coming back, the last one
> > (which was the crucial URIBL test) had a timeout of 0
> > and was ignored even though dns result did arrive.
> >
> > Moreover, there is a bug in Mail::SpamAssassin::Dns, where
> > a late-spawned URIBL queries (which only start afte
Well, I dint't have rbl_timeout set, but after your mail, I did. The
DNSs I have set in resolv.conf are mine, they both cache and work as
internal and external resolvers. But the UNLP NOC got screwed in the
last days, so setting the timeout a little higher wont't hurt. Thanks
for the suggestion.
H
Luis,
> I don't have any URIBL rules firing up (SA 3.2.0 from source here,
> most of the other relevant info is in the header of the mail I sent
> before to test). Where did you get them?
>[...]
> But the main difference between the live run and the ones I did with
> SA by itself (both as root and
What I copied and pasted into my message was the original spammy
message (the source of it) as IMP showed it. The posterior ALL_TRUSTED
occured because it has already been scanned and tagged by my servers.
But the main difference between the live run and the ones I did with
SA by itself (both as r
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:46 -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
> OK, i?ve been googlin' around, and it seems like an issue between
> Amavis (or MailScanner, for waht I've found) and some unsupported
> versions of Net::DNS, because when I run the message through SA by
> itself, this comes out:
Whatev
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote the following on 6/8/2007 2:41 PM -0800:
If you've got the current update from updates.spamassassin.org you've
got a working set of rules for URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_GREY. It turns
out that they didn't hit for Raymond either, so you won't see them in
this case.
Daryl
OK, i?ve been googlin' around, and it seems like an issue between
Amavis (or MailScanner, for waht I've found) and some unsupported
versions of Net::DNS, because when I run the message through SA by
itself, this comes out:
Content analysis details: (9.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name
If you've got the current update from updates.spamassassin.org you've
got a working set of rules for URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_GREY. It turns out
that they didn't hit for Raymond either, so you won't see them in this case.
Daryl
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Well, right now I'm running these comman
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.964 tagged_above=-100 required=5
> tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HTML_30_40=0.463, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
To me, it looks like enough tokens were seen to flag it as BAYES_99, but
that the host and IP it came from didn't trigger any RBL hits, which
left your point score well
Well, right now I'm running these commands to get updates:
sa-update --gpgkey --channel saupdates.openprotect.com
sa-update --gpgkey --channel updates.spamassassin.org
sa-update doesn't download URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_GREY
What am I doing wrong?
Luis
2007/6/8, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PR
Hi!
Hi, Raymond, I don't have any URIBL rules firing up (SA 3.2.0 from
source here, most of the other relevant info is in the header of the
mail I sent before to test). Where did you get them?
X-Prolocation-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
score=14.999, required 5,
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Hi, Raymond, I don't have any URIBL rules firing up (SA 3.2.0 from
source here, most of the other relevant info is in the header of the
mail I sent before to test). Where did you get them?
Run sa-update to get URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_GREY.
Daryl
Hi, Raymond, I don't have any URIBL rules firing up (SA 3.2.0 from
source here, most of the other relevant info is in the header of the
mail I sent before to test). Where did you get them?
Thanks,
Luis
2007/6/8, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi!
> They aren't scoring very much here
Luis Hernán Otegui schrieb:
Hi, could somebody run this mail trough SA and give me the scores?
They aren't scoring very much here...
Hi, your mailing probably broke half of the email so these scores are
only an estimate - if you want me to try again attach the mail as a raw
text (or .eml as ma
Hi!
They aren't scoring very much here...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@domain.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by nahuel.biol.unlp.edu.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660BE7B1FE;
Fri, 8 Jun 2007
39 matches
Mail list logo
