On 6/30/2006 9:29 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Daryl,
You've told SA that your users aren't a part of your internal network
though. If you configure SA to treat your users as part of your
internal network then it won't do net tests on them.
For clarity, I should have said RBL and SPF tests
I want to block outgoing mail to commonly misspelled domains that
are owned by typosquatters/redirect/spam/datamining people.
It's one thing to end up at http://www.earchlink.net by mistake,
but to send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is quite another. :-(
If you're willing to build them
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
as much!
Is there a local
Definitely a bug. I would suggest trying to repro with 3.1.x, and
if it still exists, file a bug...
--j.
Bart Schaefer writes:
We recently installed a new CentOS4 server, which comes with SA 3.0.6
prepackaged, to serve as our local mail store (runs sendmail,
clamassassin, spamd, and an imap
I don't see any bugzilla for this using a search on USER_IN_WHITELIST.
Has anyone else encountered this issue? Can anyone verify that it's
fixed in 3.1?
I thiought someone had complained of this about a month ago, but perhaps it
was something else. This sounds like Yet Another of the
Right now, I have a promailrc script,
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
LOGABSTRACT=all
VERBOSE=yes
SENDER=$1
SHIFT=1
# Until now, mail is untagged, you may add rules for
# mail that must not be tagged
:0 hbfw
| /usr/bin/spamc
# Now mail is tagged by spamassassin
# You may insert other rules
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, LDB wrote:
Right now, I have a promailrc script,
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
LOGABSTRACT=all
VERBOSE=yes
SENDER=$1
SHIFT=1
# Until now, mail is untagged, you may add rules for
# mail that must not be tagged
:0 hbfw
| /usr/bin/spamc
# Now mail is tagged by
Loren Wilton wrote:
No, I was thinking of multipart/alternative where one of the
alternative streams is nothing but images. That doesn't strike me as
legitimate. Can anyone think of a scenario where images *are* a
legitimate alternative representation of text?
Doesn't really help. The
Hi!
My qmail-scanner
withSA setup doubles spam entries, but not
consistentlyhas anybody else encountered this? Or doe s anybody havve a clue where I
should look? It seemsSA goes thru its run twice and then makes a copy of
the email its processing...
Thanx in
advance,
Maurice
PS:
Does SpamAssassin support SPF record checking?
Or is this something I have to patch into my incoming SMTP server?
On Saturday 01 July 2006 23:07, Philip Mak took the opportunity to write:
Does SpamAssassin support SPF record checking?
Yes. You activate it by uncommenting the corresponding LoadPlugin line in
init.pre and making sure that the required Perl modules are installed.
Or is this something I have
On Saturday 01 July 2006 23:34, Jim Evans took the opportunity to write:
A few really obvious spam mails get through every day. They don't seem
to have even been tested, which I don't understand. I haven't added
any whitelist addresses, so why doesn't it test them? the header
looks like:
From: Jim Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
I've got Spamassassin 3.03 on a Debian box, and I use it through
procmail to mark all my local mail.
A few really obvious spam mails get through every day. They don't seem
to have even been tested, which I don't understand. I haven't added
any whitelist
They are sending spam bounce messages based on spamassassin testing
this list.
===8---
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
Theo,
Well, I took the allow_user_rules line out. Some of my rules are:
#custom rules
body CSTM_INFINEX_VEN /infinex/
describe CSTM_INFINEX_VEN Message mentions Infinex Ventures
score CSTM_INFINEX_VEN 2.0
body CSTM_FONT_SIZE_EQLS_2 /tdfont size\=2/
describe CSTM_FONT_SIZE_EQLS_2 Message
1) Are these meant to be global rules or user rules? I presume the
latter from your phrasing below.
2) Are you putting the rules into ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs?
3) How are you running SpamAssassin? That can make a serious difference
regarding whether or not SpamAssassin can access your
By the way, Chase, you MAY be bogged down in a misunderstanding. The
system local rules are ALWAYS enabled. Put them into a file with a
name that ends in .cf and is in the same directory as the working
local.cf file. System rules are ALWAYS allowed. Individual user rules
are not. (Rules in the
Issue resolved. I needed to 'cat /var/log/syslog | grep CSTM' to debug my
rules. I'm getting my packages confused: spamassassin notices are in
/var/log/syslog while sa-exim notices are in exim's mainlog and rejectlog.
SA-Exim only logs the rules an email matches in rejectlog, and that only
happens
20 matches
Mail list logo
