-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On fre 25 sep 2009 13:38:19 CEST, to...@starbridge.org wrote
I've tested with SA 3.2.5 and it's working fine with
Rule2XSBody active. I've tried to delete
Hi!
No one has actually implemented the rules for my blacklists correctly. My
lists support both IP and hostname lookups. The hostname assumes that you
have forward confirmed the RDNS so that you eliminate those who might spoof.
Most people copy/paste from your wiki, so if this is true ... i
Hi!
If that's so, then we probably want that in the spamassassin rule name. Your
wiki page suggests JMF is the name. A number of people probably already
configured their spamassassin using your suggested JMF rule names and they
would need to be educated to remove it.
How about these for
spamassassin -r and spamassassin -k do other things - report to network
services like razor/pyzor/dcc and SpamCop.
On 22.09.09 22:11, João Eiras wrote:
Hum, then how do the default spam filters that come with a clean spam
assassin installation know what's spam and what's not ? Is there
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 09:29:16AM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Ouch, from your point of view it might be fine, but we see strange stuff
with DNSWL allready i certainly would not use this to shortcircuit
things.
What exactly is the strange stuff you see with DNSWL?
Granted, I'm not
Hi!
header RCVD_IN_JMF_W eval:check_rbl_sub('JMF-lastexternal', '127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_JMF_W Sender listed in JMF-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_JMF_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_JMF_W -5
Hopefully my comment isn't out of place with the current discussion of
JMF/Hostkarma. I think this is not only a
Hi!
Ouch, from your point of view it might be fine, but we see strange stuff
with DNSWL allready i certainly would not use this to shortcircuit
things.
What exactly is the strange stuff you see with DNSWL?
Granted, I'm not processing millions of messages, only tens of thousands,
but I'm not
Marc Perkel wrote:
My NoBL list is similar to yellow except that you can skip black list
lookup but maybe might be whitelisted somewhere.
I keep seeing IPs that are on both the NoBL *and* the blacklist. An
example of this 89.206.179.213. That IP currently returns 127.0.0.2
(blacklisted) and
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:05:57AM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
Ouch, from your point of view it might be fine, but we see strange stuff
with DNSWL allready i certainly would not use this to shortcircuit
things.
What exactly is the strange stuff you see with DNSWL?
Granted, I'm
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:50 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
This should be easy but I'm missing something. I have a RBL list (dnset)
for host testbl.junkemailfilter.com
:2:Test
.xx.host.example.com :4:
.host.example.com :3:
.example.com :9:
.com :6:
Works fine. But - I want to create an A
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:19 +0200, to...@starbridge.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On fre 25 sep 2009 13:38:19 CEST, to...@starbridge.org wrote
I've tested with SA 3.2.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:19 +0200, to...@starbridge.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
to...@starbridge.org a écrit :
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On fre 25 sep 2009
On 29/09/2009 05:27, MySQL Student wrote:
header RCVD_IN_JMF_W eval:check_rbl_sub('JMF-lastexternal', '127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_JMF_W Sender listed in JMF-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_JMF_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_JMF_W -5
Hopefully my comment isn't out of place with the current discussion of
Responding to a lot of questions here. The lists contain both host names
and IP addresses. IP addresses everyone understands. So I'll talk about
host names. Wells Fargo Bank - for example - (wellsfargo.com - is in the
white list as is all of Wells Fargo's hosts. This bank sends nothing but
MySQL Student wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully my comment isn't out of place with the current discussion of
JMF/Hostkarma. I think this is not only a really bad default score,
but it should be reduced to -0.5 or perhaps not used at all.
I have a money/fraud email that hit RCVD_IN_JMF_W that passed
Blaine Fleming wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
My NoBL list is similar to yellow except that you can skip black list
lookup but maybe might be whitelisted somewhere.
I keep seeing IPs that are on both the NoBL *and* the blacklist. An
example of this 89.206.179.213. That
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma white
list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP or host name) I
could probable clean out the bad entries in the white list pretty quick.
On 09/29/2009 12:27 AM, MySQL Student wrote:
Hi,
header RCVD_IN_JMF_W eval:check_rbl_sub('JMF-lastexternal', '127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_JMF_W Sender listed in JMF-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_JMF_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_JMF_W -5
Hopefully my comment isn't out of place with the current discussion
Dear Sirs,
First of all thank them for their help
I was out of the office for some days that is why I am taking up this issue
recently.
I made the changes I recommended such as:
Add RBL
Add SARE rules and SOUGTH
Reducing the amount of SPAM processes from 20 to 5
Set spamc -x
On tir 29 sep 2009 17:37:20 CEST, Warren Togami wrote
On 09/29/2009 12:27 AM, MySQL Student wrote:
header RCVD_IN_JMF_W eval:check_rbl_sub('JMF-lastexternal', '127.0.0.1')
this one could be changed to some trusted variant for testing on local
trusted_networks
so change lastexternal to
On 09/29/2009 10:23 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL Yellow
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BR Brown
I'm willing go go with whatever name works better for the community. I
will change my wiki to be consistent.
Hi Marc,
I appreciate your desire for
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:50:13PM -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
Hi,
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma
white list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP or host name) I
could probable clean out the bad entries in the white list pretty quick.
I'm not sure this is the best approach. I have a procmail recipe that
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
Oops! Sorry, I didn't intend to send my previous message to the list.
Nedry
On 9/29/09 at 12:51 PM -0500 Larry Nedry wrote:
On 9/29/09 at 7:41 AM -0700 Marc Perkel wrote:
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma white
list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP
I scanned my spam folders and found a few false positives that hit on
either DNSWL or JMF (HOSTKARMA? See how confusing it is not knowing
what to call it?)
Is there an easy automated way we can forward FP's to DNSWL and JMF so
their maintainers can decide what to do about the offending
Hi,
I've few question about the behavior of Bayes and SQL. Before the
questions, i've followed this tutorial
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/debian-spamassassin-sql.html that
should be the same thing of this:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/sql/README.bayes, my db
are
Dear Sirs,
I have a problem with the SA, I have added the option Spam-x since that time
the SA is no return emails, no subject or message body,
prodria be the problem which.
greetings
That doesn't look much like a SpamAssassin option there, to me.
Perhaps you may get more useful responses if you give us more detail about your
system configuration.
What mailserver are you running?
How does it invoke SpamAssassin?
Do you have a virus scanner installed?
What operating system
Paul Andrews wrote:
Try users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
At 12:31 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
Nothing
As the headers for every message state...
list-unsubscribe: mailto:users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org
It seems that people have already been using the rules
copied from your site. It will be confusing to them if
we change the official name. Some will accidentally have
your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL Yellow
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BR Brown
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Luis campo wrote:
I have a problem with the SA, I have added the option Spam-x since that
time the SA is no return emails, no subject or message body,
Whatever is calling spamc is not responding properly to an error code from
spamc. Since this is causing lost messages,
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, John Hardin wrote:
At 04:10 PM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
Is it just me, or are others getting multiple copies of list posts the
last hour or so?
Not I Only see a few posts in the last day, and only one of each.
Huh. I guess the ASF MTA doesn't like me, then.
The
On 09/29/2009 12:50 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
Hi!
We're bikeshedding here, but I believe these names are better because it
is absolutely clear what it means without _IN. Shorter name is better
and easier to read I think.
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names or the above
proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems opinions
pm...@email.it wrote:
Hi,
I've few question about the behavior of Bayes and SQL. Before the
questions, i've followed this tutorial
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/debian-spamassassin-sql.html that
should be the same thing of this:
On tir 29 sep 2009 23:30:15 CEST, Warren Togami wrote
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names or the
above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems opinions are split here.
let it be the long names that loose ?
ironical you wanted to be shurt names but created a longer one ?
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, John Hardin wrote:
At 04:10 PM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
Is it just me, or are others getting multiple copies of list posts
the last hour or so?
Not I Only see a few posts in the last day, and only one of each.
On tir 29 sep 2009 23:30:15 CEST, Warren Togami wrote
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule
names or the above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems
opinions are split here.
let it be the long names that loose ?
ironical you wanted to be shurt names but created a
longer
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Larry Nedry wrote:
On 9/29/09 at 7:41 AM -0700 Marc Perkel wrote:
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma white
list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP or host name) I
could probable clean out the bad entries in the white list pretty
On ons 30 sep 2009 00:10:05 CEST, John Hardin wrote
Please don't send stuff like that to the list.
the list is still usefull in email, it can now be tested with uri
rules, but yes never send big samples in public, this is what
pastebins are for
but we are all humans, and humans make
pm...@email.it wrote:
Hi,
I've few question about the behavior of Bayes and SQL. Before the
questions, i've followed this tutorial
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/debian-spamassassin-sql.html that
should be the same thing of this:
I will go along with the consensus of the group.
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules
copied from your site. It will be confusing to them if
we change the official name. Some will accidentally have
your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:50 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from
your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name.
Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
On 09/29/2009 08:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names or the
above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems opinions are split here.
Warren
If there is a lack of consensus then I appoint you Warren to make the
final call. I personally have no
Didn't we already have this discussion today. You need to use the link in the
headers!
Try
users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.orgmailto:users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org
From: Danny [mailto:d...@eastcogroup.com.hk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:34 PM
To:
At 08:33 PM 9/29/2009, Danny wrote:
Nothing
As the headers of every message say...
list-unsubscribe: mailto:users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL Yellow
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BR Brown
OTOH, I really like these new names. My brain thinks less
hard to recognize them.
How do other people feel. Should we stick to his old names
with JMF in the Wiki or these new
Marc,
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names
or the above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems opinions are
split here.
Warren
warren,
marc already decided once, please dont give more choices...
you should have thought that out before putting the list in a
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 03:10:05PM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Larry Nedry wrote:
On 9/29/09 at 7:41 AM -0700 Marc Perkel wrote:
For those of you getting spam from IPs/Hostnames on my hostkarma white
list, if you could email me a list of false hits (IP or host name) I
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
- is the BL in question (which ever it may be) prepared for sustaining
the
55 matches
Mail list logo
