mask tmp.mount, and reboot. I
solve this issue, and then if needed the apps write on /tmp on /dev/md2
or I misunderstood the matter? So do you think that the /tmp returned
by the error is not the /tmp on /dev/md2?
outbut of df -hT may help as well as output of mount
check bash profile, and or systemmd that change how and where temp
files are stored, is dovecot started via systemmd ?
export | grep tmp
[root@myhostname ~]# export | grep tmp
declare -x PWD=/tmp
what is the homedir of user running this ?
/home/username/
possible you have set spamd /
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Almond wrote:
hi Mark,
do you mean this?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs
but tmpfs have no quota... as you can read on that page, i'm confused...
so, that's done by default on CentOS ?
indeed, I didn't see any tmpfs on CentOS 6, as I remember...but I
Hi David,
so you mean to move the /tmp partition from /dev/md2 to another
partition, since /var/spool/mail and quota control are on the same
partition?
and what size to reserve to the new /tmp... ?
thank you
On 22/12/2014 18:46, David B Funk wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Almond wrote:
hi
Am 22.12.2014 um 19:08 schrieb Almond:
so you mean to move the /tmp partition from /dev/md2 to another
partition, since /var/spool/mail and quota control are on the same
partition?
and what size to reserve to the new /tmp... ?
well, we have it on tmpfs like below on our inbound mail-gw and
Yes, that's exactly what you need to do.
As your system already has tmpfs type partitions for things such as '/run'
just set up a new config for '/tmp' which is modeled on the config for '/run'.
As to the size, that will depend upon your system activity and configuration.
I'd try starting with
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 22.12.2014 um 19:08 schrieb Almond:
so you mean to move the /tmp partition from /dev/md2 to another
partition, since /var/spool/mail and quota control are on the same
partition?
and what size to reserve to the new /tmp... ?
well, we have it on
Am 22.12.2014 um 19:32 schrieb David B Funk:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, we have it on tmpfs like below on our inbound mail-gw and use in
any SA/ClamAV related service (milters and so on) explicit
Environment=TMPDIR=/tmp to make sure even /var/tmp is not used
also
Hi, last questions please.
let me understand better.
tmpfs is not RAM but HD?
those
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 33M 16G 1% /run
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 33M 16G
Am 22.12.2014 um 19:45 schrieb Almond:
Hi, last questions please.
let me understand better.
tmpfs is not RAM but HD?
tmpfs = RAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tmpfs
those
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 33M 16G 1% /run
tmpfs
On 22. dec. 2014 19.45.42 Almond almond27...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, last questions please.
Please dont
let me understand better.
tmpfs is not RAM but HD?
Tmpfs is a filesystem, ramdisk is /dev/shm
those
tmpfs tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs tmpfs 16G
Hello!
I wrote this post on CentOS forum
CentOS 7 + spamassassin-3.3.2-18.el7.x86_64
https://www.centos.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=47t=50226p=213277
case was:
1) user mail quota 50 MB
2) spamd and clamscan together
3) ...spamd[28040]: plugin: eval failed: error writing to
On Sun, 2014-12-21 at 23:40 +0100, Almond wrote:
1) user mail quota 50 MB
2) spamd and clamscan together
3) ...spamd[28040]: plugin: eval failed: error writing to
/tmp/.spamassassin28040V31F7ftmp: Disk quota exceeded at
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message.pm line 965,
On 10/4/2014 4:38 PM, Yasir Assam wrote:
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
the IPv6 lines and using
the --ipv4 option, and none of those things made a difference.
I've tried googling for an answer and can't figure out what's going on.
Any help troubleshooting this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Yasir
Am 04.10.2014 um 08:12 schrieb Yasir Assam:
I took the advice on
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver and set up a
caching name server.
spamd isn't reporting errors now, but named is:
if you don't have ipv6 i would disable it on the OS level
i have the following settings
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
Am 04.10.2014 um 22:38 schrieb Yasir Assam:
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
tried
commenting out the first line, commenting out the IPv6 lines and using
the --ipv4 option, and none of those things made a difference.
I've tried googling for an answer and can't figure out what's going on.
Any help troubleshooting this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Yasir
Thanks for pointing me into the right direction. That helped me solve
the issue.
In fact there was no issue. I just had to run sa-learn -u user
--spam miss-classified-message.txt.
This command added some content into the Bayes tables and the warning
in the debug output was gone.
So that
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Nicolás wrote:
Ok, already done that, waited a few hours and now the 'correct'
DNS host appears in the header, but is still marked as spam.
On 20.08.14 20:14, Nicolás wrote:
This would be the latest test:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
El 21/08/2014 11:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Nicolás wrote:
Ok, already done that, waited a few hours and now the 'correct' DNS
host appears in the header, but is still marked as spam.
On 20.08.14 20:14, Nicolás wrote:
This would be the latest test:
Although this mail doesn't seem to be spam, it is always marked as
it would be by Google. I just don't understand what makes Google think
it is!
If it is marked by Google, it has nothing to do with your SA.
IMHO, Google is not making such a good job as marking spam, I get way to
many FP (many
On 08/21/2014 12:11 PM, Nicolás wrote:
El 21/08/2014 11:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Nicolás wrote:
Ok, already done that, waited a few hours and now the 'correct' DNS
host appears in the header, but is still marked as spam.
On 20.08.14 20:14, Nicolás wrote:
El 21/08/2014 11:16, Olivier Nicole escribió:
Although this mail doesn't seem to be spam, it is always marked as
it would be by Google. I just don't understand what makes Google think
it is!
If it is marked by Google, it has nothing to do with your SA.
I know, I was just answering the
On 08/21/2014 12:16 PM, Olivier Nicole wrote:
Although this mail doesn't seem to be spam, it is always marked as
it would be by Google. I just don't understand what makes Google think
it is!
If it is marked by Google, it has nothing to do with your SA.
IMHO, Google is not making such a good
El 21/08/2014 11:26, Axb escribió:
On 08/21/2014 12:16 PM, Olivier Nicole wrote:
Although this mail doesn't seem to be spam, it is always marked as
it would be by Google. I just don't understand what makes Google think
it is!
If it is marked by Google, it has nothing to do with your SA.
On 21.08.2014 09:20, Michael wrote:
So that means, that actually I do not have to do any action on newly
created users. Once they retrain their first message, the Bayes entries
are getting created. Before that, Bayes is not used for that user. Is
that correct?
Yes, I would say it correct. To
Hi,
I'm using Spamassassin in a virtual user environment. To store
preferences like settings, Bayes and AWL for each user I'm trying to
set up a MySQL storage.
I created the MySQL tables according the instructions from the files
awl_mysql.sql, bayes_mysql.sql, README.awl, README.bayes,
something to do with it?
The IP is: 92.222.24.114
The mail server is: mail.devels.es
The reverse DNS assigned by the hosting to that IP is: 114.ip-92-222-24.eu
Below I'm including the headers, I'd be very grateful for any help to
find out why is every mail marked as spam since I've already run
On 08/20/2014 04:24 PM, Nicolás wrote:
The only one tip I have right now is that the reverse DNS query of the
server's resolves to a different host than the one sent in EHLO, but in
that case I don't know how to avoid that since the hosting where the
dedicated server is located automatically
Hi.
I did test a similar configuration a while ago and had the same problem.
If you take a look at this thread on the mailing list:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-vars-records-on-MySQL-not-created-automatically-td104615.html
you'll see it was a problem of running 'sa-learn
El 20/08/2014 15:29, Axb escribió:
On 08/20/2014 04:24 PM, Nicolás wrote:
The only one tip I have right now is that the reverse DNS query of the
server's resolves to a different host than the one sent in EHLO, but in
that case I don't know how to avoid that since the hosting where the
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Nicolás wrote:
El 20/08/2014 15:29, Axb escribió:
get fcRDNS ...OVH lets you set a correct rdns for you hostname.
Ok, already done that, waited a few hours and now the 'correct' DNS host
appears in the header, but is still marked as spam.
Any other idea?
Please
El 20/08/2014 19:55, John Hardin escribió:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Nicolás wrote:
El 20/08/2014 15:29, Axb escribió:
get fcRDNS ...OVH lets you set a correct rdns for you hostname.
Ok, already done that, waited a few hours and now the 'correct' DNS
host appears in the header, but is still
(From the subscribed address this time - sorry if you get it twice)
Incorrect.
list which includes the sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and cbl.abuseat.org lists
for example. And ZEN includes dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net. And
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is dead now. I am not familiar with the others
No SORBS list is
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Incorrect.
list which includes the sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and cbl.abuseat.org lists
for example. And ZEN includes dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net. And
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is dead now. I am not familiar with the others
No SORBS list is included in any Spamhaus list, and
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Spamhaus PBL lists IPs that by policy (policy block list) should
not be sending email such as IPs in dynamic IP address ranges.
http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/
So both of those lists are listing addresses known to be in a dynamic
address range. Those are often
Of course I fell into an old trap and didn't read before I hit send...
corrections below:
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
The SORBS DUHL is just dynamics.
* With the obvious caveat that networks of the world are always changing
so listings may be changed to static from time to time and SORBS just
Thanks, Bob. I've added zen.spamhaus.org to my list.
--pat--
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
Pat Traynor wrote:
I'm using Postfix for mail. I've done some research and implemented
several changes in my main.cf file with directives such as
smtpd_recipient_restrictions
- if it helps any, here is my postfix main.cf file, with the
comments stripped:
http://pastebin.com/kpJehe3Z
Thanks again for all your help!
--pat--
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
Pat Traynor wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
but you can pastebin the rejected msg if possible then ask how to make
/dnsblusage/
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk
Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage/
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk
Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
--pat--
--
Pat
Pat Traynor wrote:
I've pastbin'd the first part of one of the spams here:
http://pastebin.com/Feete78K
The IP address of the message appears to me to be 185.45.193.123 out
of Dubai. It is not listed in most of the DNSBLs that I checked. It
is listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net however. That would be
think; in our experience, most people agree on what's ham
vs. what's spam. The real win for individualized Bayes databases
comes from people working in specialized fields where the jargon
associated with the field is a strong ham indicator.
In other words, individualized Bayes databases help quite
Thanks, Bob.
I've implemented a couple of your suggestions immediately and will read
through some of the other ones, as well as Jim's article for ideas on
further improvements.
--pat--
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
Pat Traynor wrote:
I've pastbin'd the first part of one of the
I run a web server, and for many of my hosting customers, I'll forward
their email to other mail servers. My own mail is stored on my server,
and spam has always been an annoyance, but some external mail servers
sometimes stop accepting mail from me, as it contains so much spam.
The problem is
that an upgrade would make that
massive a difference.
So my question is - are there any trustworthy Linux administrators out
there that I could hire that could look over my setup and figure out
what I'm doing so wrong?
I'm sure there are, yes - I hope someone on this list can help you out
Pat Traynor skrev den 2014-07-13 16:35:
So my question is - are there any trustworthy Linux administrators out
there that I could hire that could look over my setup and figure out
what I'm doing so wrong?
dont ask for prof help here it will not work on an opensource maillist
:=)
but you
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Antony Stone wrote:
Have you been able to identify whether the unsolicited mail which has been
thus detected is:
- genuine email (possibly of a marketing variety, but still deliberately
sent) from your hosting customers
It's absolutely not from MY customers. I don't let
On Sunday 13 July 2014 at 19:52:57, Pat Traynor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Antony Stone wrote:
Have you been able to identify whether the unsolicited mail which has
been thus detected is:
- genuine email (possibly of a marketing variety, but still deliberately
sent) from your hosting
rate limited. Please visit
421-4.7.0 http://www.google.com/mail/help/bulk_mail.html to review our Bulk 421
4.7.0 Email Senders Guidelines. w18si12235074qay.49 - gsmtp (in reply to end
of DATA command)
for your own domains, start with spf / dkim / dmarc
and then only accept spf pass in mta
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Antony Stone wrote:
It's absolutely not from MY customers. I don't let anyone relay their
outgoing email through me.
On Sunday 13 July 2014 at 16:35:14, Pat Traynor wrote:
I run a web server, and for many of my hosting customers, I'll forward
their email to other mail
--As of July 13, 2014 7:56:38 PM +0200, Antony Stone is alleged to have
said:
On Sunday 13 July 2014 at 19:52:57, Pat Traynor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Antony Stone wrote:
Have you been able to identify whether the unsolicited mail which has
been thus detected is:
- genuine email
Pat Traynor wrote:
I'm using Postfix for mail. I've done some research and implemented
several changes in my main.cf file with directives such as
smtpd_recipient_restrictions
smtpd_sender_restrictions
smtpd_helo_restrictions
and the like.
The smtpd_recipient_restrictions
On Jul 13, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Pat Traynor p...@ssih.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Antony Stone wrote:
Have you been able to identify whether the unsolicited mail which has been
thus detected is:
- genuine email (possibly of a marketing variety, but still deliberately
sent) from your
been temporarily rate limited. Please
visit http://www.google.com/mail/help/bulk_mail.html to review our
Bulk Email Senders Guidelines.
At the same time that you see this happening if you look in your mail
queue you will probably find other messages that are spam and are
being rejected
On 9. jul. 2014 07.00.44 CEST, Sergio sec...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that my rule using Received instead of From did the trick,
the rule is working now.
It 2 diffrent spams :)
These are the headers from amazoncoupons-user=domain@lastawhdak.com:
headerBLACKLIST_REGEXFrom:address
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:42:26 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 9. jul. 2014 07.00.44 CEST, Sergio sec...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that my rule using Received instead of From did the
trick, the rule is working now.
It should run only on the From header. Otherwise it may FP on VERP and
similar
On 7/9/2014 1:00 AM, Sergio wrote:
It seems that my rule using Received instead of From did the
trick, the rule is working now.
Sergio,
The format of that email address is likely verp or some related format
that encodes the recipient in the From address so that bounces can be
processed
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:54:08 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 7/9/2014 1:00 AM, Sergio wrote:
It seems that my rule using Received instead of From did the
trick, the rule is working now.
Sergio,
The format of that email address is likely verp or some related
format that encodes the
On 7/9/2014 9:08 AM, RW wrote:
VERP and similar schemes work on the envelope, so checking the From
header should relatively safe.
Not debating that point because it's not really my point. I'm trying to
focus on the fact that the existence of the schema he is looking for
with the rule looks
Hi all,
first of all, big thanks for all the inputs.
I am seeing a nice quantity of blocked spammers it was really a high rate
of them and KAM you, as always, are right. It is taking some FP on the run,
but from 640 blocked emails less than a 1 percent were FP, that FPs are
being taking care on a
Hi all,
long time not bother you with my doubts, sorry if this has been posted
before and your help is appreciated.
I have been hammered with a lot of spam that comes like this in the from:
Example list:
bounces+974322-5ea9-user=domain@sendgrid.info
harprefinancelender-user=domain
It seems that my rule using Received instead of From did the trick, the
rule is working now.
Thanks!
Regards,
Sergio
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Sergio sec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
long time not bother you with my doubts, sorry if this has been posted
before and your help
,Personal,etc}.*/{cur,new}
sa-learn --spam ~/Maildir/.Malware.*/{cur,new}
8
Is there a neater way of doing it?
Should I use --no-sync?
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions
Mark
On 05/29/2014 12:22 PM, Arthur Dent wrote:
So...
Will this work for sa-learn?
8
# Proposed sa-learn maildir script
#!/bin/bash
sa-learn --ham ~/Maildir/.Hobby/{cur,new}
sa-learn --ham
On 29/05/2014 11:43, Axb wrote:
On 05/29/2014 12:22 PM, Arthur Dent wrote:
So...
Will this work for sa-learn?
8
# Proposed sa-learn maildir script
#!/bin/bash
sa-learn --ham ~/Maildir/.Hobby/{cur,new}
--no-sync?
Many thanks for the help so far...
Mark
Hi
I need a rule to block spam contains
Subject or Body contains words 'or.*amento' or 'planilha' or 'urgente'
AND URI contains links to orcamento or panilha (php or pdf)
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B
On 5/28/2014 9:19 AM, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Hi
I need a rule to block spam contains
Subject or Body contains words 'or.*amento' or 'planilha' or 'urgente'
AND URI contains links to orcamento or panilha (php or pdf)
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~
In fact, there was this error, even after fixing it still didn't work.
I believe that the problem was occurring because the message had a HMTL
attached and in turn had a link to the file. I decided to change and do
as follows:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
On 5/28/2014 11:14 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 10:19 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
uri __ORCAMENTO_U
Hi,
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly containing
any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI, followed by any
number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed miserably, and hoped
someone could help.
body LOC_SHORT_BODY_URI m{^.{0,15}(https
[quote]
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly containing any
number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI, followed by any number of
characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed miserably, and hoped someone could
help.
[/quote]
This should work for you:
Body
could help.
body LOC_SHORT_BODY_URI m{^.{0,15}(https?://.{1,50}).{0,15}$}
This catches pretty much everything and I can't figure out why.
This should catch pretty much any mail with a web link in it. Body
rules don't reliably match start and end of line markers (^ and $), so
you can't use them
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Arthur Glennie wrote:
[quote]
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
followed by any number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
miserably, and hoped someone could help
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
...is redundant. The subject text is included in body rules.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 14:16 -0400, Alex wrote:
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
followed by any number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
miserably, and hoped someone could help
On 05/28/2014 11:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
snip-snip
Another approach would be to actually ensure there is only a single
chunk. And finally, meta them together.
rawbody __CHUNK /^./
tflags __CHUNK multiple
metaSHORT_BODY_URI __SHORT_BODY_URI (__CHUNK == 1)
That
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 00:12 +0200, Axb wrote:
On 05/28/2014 11:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Another approach would be to actually ensure there is only a single
chunk. And finally, meta them together.
rawbody __CHUNK /^./
tflags __CHUNK multiple
or a modern 3.4 way :)
of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
miserably, and hoped someone could help.
body LOC_SHORT_BODY_URI m{^.{0,15}(https?://.{1,50}).{0,15}$}
This catches pretty much everything and I can't figure out why.
Oh, come on, Alex. We've had that topic just recently in your Help
Hi,
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::BodyEval
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::BodyEval::has_check_body_length)
body __BODY_LENGTH_100 eval:check_body_length('100')
This indeed may be a neat substitution to the __RB_LE_nnn and __CHUNK
rules discussed, to match short message
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 21:55 -0400, Alex wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Oh, come on, Alex. We've had that topic just recently in your Help with
short bodys with URLs thread. Which wasn't the first time either...
I know, I know. I actually started
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 22:05 -0400, Alex wrote:
This is the quoted-printable text/html content:
HTMLHEAD/HEAD
BODY dir=3Dltr
DIV dir=3Dltr
DIV style=3DFONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR:
#00
DIVHi! A =
Hi,
A body rule with beginning and end anchors /^ $/ as you posted matches
complete paragraphs. Not the full body.
I don't think I realized multiple buffers weren't considered
simultaneously.
I don't get buffer, neither simultaneously in this context.
I'm used to a buffer being a
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 23:36 -0400, Alex wrote:
A body rule with beginning and end anchors /^ $/ as you posted matches
complete paragraphs. Not the full body.
I don't think I realized multiple buffers weren't considered
simultaneously.
I don't get buffer, neither
Hi,
I'm used to a buffer being a __CHUNK (using your rule example) of
text, or the first 4k or so, not up to the first two line breaks, so I
was confused.
You are confused, indeed. And confusing body for rawbody rules. So much
for the pun. ;)
The terms I were using are directly derived
we've already discussed here, and
I really appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Alex
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno
\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8?
c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 13:46 -0400, Alex wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de
wrote:
This is supposed to be a rawbody rule. I know, because I've discussed
and partly developed the rule(set) in question with you before, back in
Oct 2013. And
Hi,
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de
wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 20:19 -0400, Alex wrote:
[...] not sure if something's changed, or the rule never worked as I
expected, but it's having problems, and I hoped someone could help.
Something changed
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 20:19 -0400, Alex wrote:
[...] not sure if something's changed, or the rule never worked as I
expected, but it's having problems, and I hoped someone could help.
Something changed indeed -- you broke the __RB_GT_200 sub-rule.
body __RB_GT_200 /^.{201}/s
This is supposed
could
help.
body __RB_GT_200 /^.{201}/s
meta __BODY_LE_200 (__RB_LE_200 == 1) !__RB_GT_200
meta __RB_LE_200 !__RB_GT_200# less or equal IFF not greater
mimeheader __MIME_IMAGE Content-Type =~ /^image\/./
mimeheader __MIME_ATTACH Content-Disposition =~ /^attachment/
metaLOC_SHORT
On 2014-02-27 12:50, Francesco Acchiappati wrote:
List-Unsubscribe:
http://xptoplus.com.br/media/u.php?p=s6/rs/5m27/ry/uj/rs
what happens if you use this link ?
to the other samples i dont know
On 2014-02-27 13:08, Axb wrote:
their Xmailer may be a good trait as well .-)
X-Mailer: OEM
and localhost.localdomain with is pretty much anywhere but i dont post
this msg :)
Helllo everyone,
i'm in need to build a custom filter to block unsolicited emails from a
brazilian advertising company.
i can't get rid so i collected a couple of headers and i'd like to hear
from you on what would be the best way to create a filter for them.
headers follow:
--
On 02/27/2014 12:50 PM, Francesco Acchiappati wrote:
Helllo everyone,
i'm in need to build a custom filter to block unsolicited emails from a
brazilian advertising company.
i can't get rid so i collected a couple of headers and i'd like to hear
from you on what would be the best way to create a
: OEM
Wow, that was blazing fast!
thank you very much for the help. :)
Hi,
I need a regex to match an alphanumeric string with letters and numbers.
example: 48HQZBF404TY2298D1414BB8050022YQ3872444
The pattern is defined as:
A sequence of alphanumeric characters, letters are upper or lower case, at
least 30 chars long, containing at least 10 numbers.
This
On 2/26/2014 6:53 PM, Webmaster wrote:
I need a regex to match an alphanumeric string with letters and numbers.
example: 48HQZBF404TY2298D1414BB8050022YQ3872444
The pattern is defined as:
A sequence of alphanumeric characters, letters are upper or lower
case, at least 30 chars long,
301 - 400 of 1889 matches
Mail list logo
