We have AWL in PostgreSQL, the extended schema for SA 3.3:
# \d awl
Tabelle »public.awl«
Spalte | Typ | Attribute
+-+
username | character
On Wednesday March 3 2010 11:20:26 Michael Monnerie wrote:
We have AWL in PostgreSQL, the extended schema for SA 3.3:
We get a lot of
INSERT: duplicate key violates unique contraint »awl_pkey«
messages, is that normal? Seems SA tries to insert without checking if
the record exists already.
Do not post it here, put it on pastebin. Thanks.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
I have been getting bombarded for weeks with these and even tho I have
created specific rules in LOCAL.cf, Spamassassin refuses to even check these
bogus obvious spam and potentially virus emails.
I get literally 100+ of these a day.
-W
Received: (qmail 11856 invoked by uid 110); 2 Mar 2010
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to work.
this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a day and
Spamassassin does not even check them.
Thats hundreds of these every day for weeks and weeks and weeks on end.
-W
Received: (qmail 21696
On 03/03/2010 13:22, twofers wrote:
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to
work. this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a
day and Spamassassin does not even check them.
Suggest you configure SpamAssassin to check them then.
--
Mike
On 3.3.2010 15:22, twofers wrote:
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to
work. this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a
day and Spamassassin does not even check them.
Thats hundreds of these every day for weeks and weeks and weeks on
On 3.3.2010 15:34, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
On 3.3.2010 15:22, twofers wrote:
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to
work. this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a
day and Spamassassin does not even check them.
Thats hundreds of these
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, twofers wrote:
I have been getting bombarded for weeks with these and even tho I have
created specific rules in LOCAL.cf, Spamassassin refuses to even check
The only reason for SA to 'refuse' to check a mail is if it exceeds the
SIZE LIMIT for scanning. This limit is most
The ones that I have seen are about 200k (size=194761) they tend to carry
an invoice.zip attachment, containing an invoice.exe file.
My Mimedefang filter is quarantining the attachement at the gateway, byt the
messages are coming through. Mimedefang, in my case, sets a 48K maximum on
the
Twofers wrote on Wed, 3 Mar 2010 05:17:21 -0800 (PST):
Received: from unknown (HELO BUIDJMJ) (220.85.144.155)
These would get rejected at MTA here.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Is there still a reason for this update channel?
90_sare_freemail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Or is it now built in to SA v3.3.0?
On 03/03/2010 21:32, Michael Scheidell wrote:
tracking down some FP's on Sa 3.3.0, they all hit URIBL_DBL.
(every email hits that rule)
# DBL, http://www.spamhaus.org/dbl/ . Note that hits return 127.0.1.x
# A records, so we use a 32-bit mask to match that /24 range.
uridnssub
On 3/3/2010 1:40 PM, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 03/03/2010 21:32, Michael Scheidell wrote:
tracking down some FP's on Sa 3.3.0, they all hit URIBL_DBL.
(every email hits that rule)
# DBL, http://www.spamhaus.org/dbl/ . Note that hits return 127.0.1.x
# A records, so we use a 32-bit mask to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
Yeah. You shouldn't be using it like that on 3.3.0. Go to
http://www.spamhaus.org/dbl and look for SpamAssassin on the FAQ page.
The DBL entries were added via sa-update yesterday, not added manually -
at least for me.
Anytime someone uses a new concept,
On 3/3/10 4:45 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
The DBL entries were added via sa-update yesterday, not added manually -
at least for me.
Bill
seems to be an SA 3.3.1 thing. I'll have to delete it and hope it
doesn't show up tomorrow.
I'll open an SA bug.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone:
On 03/03/2010 21:45, Bill Landry wrote:
tracking down some FP's on Sa 3.3.0, they all hit URIBL_DBL.
(every email hits that rule)
# DBL, http://www.spamhaus.org/dbl/ . Note that hits return 127.0.1.x
# A records, so we use a 32-bit mask to match that /24 range.
uridnssub URIBL_DBL
On 3/3/10 4:52 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 3/3/10 4:45 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
I'll open an SA bug.
i am too late SA QA folks already got it:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6363
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
*| *SECNAP Network
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 15:38 -0500, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Is there still a reason for this update channel?
90_sare_freemail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Or is it now built in to SA v3.3.0?
20_freemail.cf and 20_freemail_domains.cf ?
--
char
On 3/3/2010 10:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 15:38 -0500, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Is there still a reason for this update channel?
90_sare_freemail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Or is it now built in to SA v3.3.0?
20_freemail.cf and 20_freemail_domains.cf ?
(Sorry for the direct reply, Michael. On-list, too.)
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:32 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
tracking down some FP's on Sa 3.3.0, they all hit URIBL_DBL.
(every email hits that rule)
See bug 6363 [1] and bug 6335 [2].
Update has been done, should already be propagating to
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:38 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
On 3.3.2010 15:34, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
On 3.3.2010 15:22, twofers wrote:
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to
work. this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a
day and Spamassassin
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:06 -0800, Bill Landry wrote:
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:38 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
We're not going to re-hash one of the many discussions, err, heated
flame-fests from the clamav and sanesecurity lists, are we? ;)
This OP's problem is unrelated. Rejecting at a spam
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:20 pm, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:06 -0800, Bill Landry wrote:
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:38 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
We're not going to re-hash one of the many discussions, err, heated
flame-fests from the clamav and sanesecurity lists, are
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:25 -0800, Bill Landry wrote:
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:20 pm, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:06 -0800, Bill Landry wrote:
On Wed, March 3, 2010 5:38 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
(Please pay spacial attention, that these two lines are all that was
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:12 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 3/3/2010 10:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 15:38 -0500, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Is there still a reason for this update channel?
90_sare_freemail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Or is it now
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 02:20 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
This OP's problem is unrelated. Rejecting at a spam score threshold of
5.
Oops. Sorry, this is incorrect. I was thinking about another thread
today. Been a long day with lots of discussions, threads and code to
jiggle. I'd better
On 3/3/2010 8:22 AM, twofers wrote:
I have 52 of these sitting in my inbox this morning when I came in to
work. this is just the beginning. I get literally hundreds of these a
day and Spamassassin does not even check them.
Thats hundreds of these every day for weeks and weeks and weeks on
28 matches
Mail list logo
