BEWARE: this *may* cause false positives - YMMV
after the required rule addition:
if (version = 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host pink
endif
domains seen lately:
http://pastebin.com/uH4YfVXR
same may apply to the red TLD
BEWARE: this *may* cause false positives - YMMV
Hi, I use a Spamassasin version 3.3.1 on Windows System and I have a problem
with Bayesian filter:
- A legitimate users send an email to our server and they are
delivered normally
- When that users insert its domain in the email signature the
email is marked as spam with that
Am 29.10.2014 um 10:50 schrieb Marco Tironi / 8volante Srl:
Hi, I use a Spamassasin version 3.3.1 on Windows System and I have a
problem with Bayesian filter:
-A legitimate users send an email to our server and they are delivered
normally
-When that users insert it’s domain in the email
Thanks for your fast reply. Now I understand the big mistake: Bayesian
filter is server specific and not public so it's not globally manteined.
Every server have its own indexes so there is no fast solution to solve it
globally.
I can allow that signrature for my server, but others server
On 10/29/2014 11:38 AM, Marco Tironi / 8volante Srl wrote:
Thanks for your fast reply. Now I understand the big mistake: Bayesian
filter is server specific and not public so it's not globally manteined.
Every server have its own indexes so there is no fast solution to solve it
globally.
I can
The Bayes system scores messages based on the occurence of tokens (pieces
of text) that appear in the E-mail. The signature you mention seems to
contain tokens that are very commonly used in spam. Best solution would be
to rewrite the signature to not contain those tokens. I don't know how you
can
I've tested the rule:
uri URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH
m;^https?://(?:[^./]+\.)*example\.com[^/?];i
is catching this sample newletter link:
Oct 29 09:38:50.368 [24608] dbg: rules: ran uri rule
URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH == got hit: http://example.com;
Complete email body content in test of newsletter
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, francis picabia fpica...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've tested the rule:
uri URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH
m;^https?://(?:[^./]+\.)*example\.com[^/?];i
is catching this sample newletter link:
Oct 29 09:38:50.368 [24608] dbg: rules: ran uri rule
URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via crafty SMTP
headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
http://www.zdnet.com/shellshock-attacks-mail-servers-735094/
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via crafty SMTP
headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
behavior.
I have my mail system running beautifully with spamassassin, but can’t get
bayes filtering to work. I’m assuming it’s a user/group issue, since if I run
tests as my ‘amavis’ user (which is how I should have it running) it does show
bayes results, but when the mail system itself processes a
On Oct 28, 2014 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
=Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
=
= frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
= procmail - it is used because i know it and it just works - so why
= should somebody step
Le 29/10/2014 16:54, Mark Martinec a écrit :
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
behavior.
I’ve been reporting a flood of new spammers operating out of Office365 to them.
These are well known spam domains which have moved to Office365. MX and
outbound mailers net handle records point to ab...@microsoft.com.
OrgAbuseHandle: MAC74-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Microsoft Abuse Contact
On Oct 29, 2014, at 16:54, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is
Hey Mark,
thanks for your explanation!
I'm beginning to understand what is going on here.
Because you have a older version of Mail::DKIM, spamassassin is
unable to provide it with its own resolver, so Mail::DKIM does
it by directly calling Net::DNS, which uses IO::Socket::INET,
while
Thomas Preißler wrote:
Hey Mark,
thanks for your explanation!
I'm beginning to understand what is going on here.
Because you have a older version of Mail::DKIM, spamassassin is
unable to provide it with its own resolver, so Mail::DKIM does
it by directly calling Net::DNS, which uses
The garbage they send is 6MB in length. Their unsubscribe link also
doesn't work.
--
From: Jude DaShiell jdash...@panix.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 3:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: what can be done about deep sea nutrition spam?
The garbage they send is 6MB in length. Their unsubscribe link also
doesn't work.
Use RBLs that have this server
On 10/28/2014 7:24 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:23 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:39 +0100
before I commit please test with
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST Whitelisted header host or domain
describe
On 10/29/2014 10:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 7:24 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:23 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Axb axb.li...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:39 +0100
before I commit please test with
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST Whitelisted
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 00:14 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
2014-10-20 20:11, Reindl Harald wrote:
[...]
sorry, no, but what i face repeatly are messages like below
in fact only if the machine has more than 1 dns in resolv.conf
configure it to just use 127.0.0.1 and that won't happen
That message will arrive again probably by tomorrow. Due to the size of
the message, I'll put it in my web space with full headers and once done
send a follow up url to this list. Any interested can then get all the
details.
--
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, David Jones wrote:
From: Jude
On October 29, 2014 8:52:40 PM Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
The problem is solved with perl 5.18, 5.20, 5.21.5,
which deal with pPOK vs. POK flags somewhat differently.
Spampd 2.30 does not work with perl 5.18, spampd 2.42 does, seem lot is
changed in perl, so is it not just
Benny Pedersen wrote:
The problem is solved with perl 5.18, 5.20, 5.21.5,
which deal with pPOK vs. POK flags somewhat differently.
Spampd 2.30 does not work with perl 5.18, spampd 2.42 does, seem lot
is changed in perl, so is it not just mail::dkim that needs updates
for perl 5.18 ?
Or is it
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
behavior.
27 matches
Mail list logo
