[Pulling this conversation back on-list where I can misinform everyone
publicly]
On 22 Jan 2019, at 5:04, Ian Evans wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:15 AM Bill Cole <
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
[snip]
Note that because the plugin is disabled by default, the default
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation.
Okay, it looks like the fuzzy versions are still needed...
Restored.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
On 1/22/2019 2:46 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Joseph Brennan wrote:
>
>> Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation.
>
> Okay, it looks like the fuzzy versions are still needed...
>
I've added a few tweaks to my CRIM rules as well.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP
Several years ago I added a bunch of rules to my local.cf that I picked up
from spamtips.org. That was back in the days of Spamassassin 3.3.2, about
2012.
Just curious, six years later, if it's worth keep any of these rules or
whether their functionally has been rolled into or supplanted by later
Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation. They are all
coming in from hosts in 185.118.165 and 185.118.166.
Note on X-Spam-Score header-- the local rule CU_INVOICE accounts for 0.5,
HTML_MESSAGE is 0.01, and CU_SPF_softfail is just information with a zero
score.
Are you using KAM.cf rules? The crim rules are designed for these.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 12:27 Joseph Brennan
> Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation. They are all
> coming in from hosts in 185.118.165 and 185.118.166.
>
> Note on X-Spam-Score header-- the local rule CU_INVOICE
On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:26, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation. They are all
coming in from hosts in 185.118.165 and 185.118.166.
Note on X-Spam-Score header-- the local rule CU_INVOICE accounts for
0.5,
HTML_MESSAGE is 0.01, and CU_SPF_softfail is
Out of curiosity...
we are noticing a huge spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days... maybe any
reactivated botnet???
is someone noticing it as well?
-PedroD
Sure, i agree Reindl, thanks.. i just was asking whether this sudden
increase has been seen as well in other places... too sudden!!
PedroD
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019, 6:18:01 PM GMT+1, Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 22.01.19 um 18:12 schrieb Pedro David Marco:
> Out of
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Sent to me personally. Incredible amount of obfuscation.
Okay, it looks like the fuzzy versions are still needed...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a
On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:30, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Are you using KAM.cf rules? The crim rules are designed for these.
Unfortunately, only 3 of the subrules match.
However, as I said in my prior message, the stock rules do catch this one.
11 matches
Mail list logo