On 9-Mar-2010, at 02:45, Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 02:36 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On 08-Mar-10 23:51, Brian wrote:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM
On 9-Mar-2010, at 05:51, Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
On 9-Mar-2010, at 06:50, Brian wrote:
Postfix remains an MTA for the 1990's as it is, but that's just a view.
If 9x% of the traffic an MTA gets to see is unwanted SPAM, it's not
unreasonable to expect a solid and reliable built in mechanism to reject
it.
My postfix rejects more than 90% of
Now THAT is off-topic. We are discussing the use of SA at SMTP time.
Please stay on-topic for this group, and for this thread.
If you actually care to continue, I expect a reasonable
response to my arguments about rejection being better than
bouncing or silent diversion.
Geez, you
Sent just to Matt by mistake. Apologies
Forwarded Message
From: Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org
Reply-to: mar...@gregorie.org
To: Matt Kettler mkettler...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: rules
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:19:23 +
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 20:52 -0500, Matt Kettler
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, R-Elists wrote:
Charles Gregory Quote:Re: [sa] Re: SMTP REJECT after DATA
The only efficiency to be gained is to reject as much as possible after the
RCPT_TO, before accepting DATA. But for systems like mine, with lousy user
cooperation, rejecting some of the mail after DATA
I am using spamassassin v 3.2.5 invoked via spamc from Postfix v2.3.3.
My local.conf file is pretty basic. The only change is to shut off
the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX rules which triggers for every message from Jan
1, 2010 on
required_hits 5
report_safe 0
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
Hi, an untested patch was written see
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?29136
http://savannah.nongnu.org/support/download.php?file_id=19901
for urgent might try, other should wait until harder tested i think
--
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Stephen Carville wrote:
--- Enter shop here [URL deleted because it causes my message to be rejected]
Please publish the entire message including all headers to someplace like
pastebin, and send us the link.
tests=BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLACK
Out of curiosity I
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Stephen Carville wrote:
I've been seeing several emails lately that are being scored low that,
from what I know of the SA rules should be scored higher. A recent
example was a typical spam message:
FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,
Hi
Is there anyway to use spamc to only check the body section of an email?
This is necessary when checking for emails that haven't been sent yet.
Please help.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Body-only-checking-through-spamc-tp27853336p27853336.html
Sent from the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Stephen Carville wrote:
--- Enter shop here [URL deleted because it causes my message to be
rejected]
Please publish the entire message including all headers to someplace like
pastebin, and send us
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 09:45 -0800, yongke wrote:
Is there anyway to use spamc to only check the body section of an email?
This is necessary when checking for emails that haven't been sent yet.
This is possible provided that all your users send mail through an MTA
that's under your control
Hi Martin
Thanks a lot for the reply, the emails our clients sends are under our
control and under our MTA. How exactly would I do this though? What I have
is just the email body in HTML from our clients, subject, to, etc, and some
account information. Do I need to actually get the created
We seem to be having a problem where clients that we interact with
regularly are having their hotmail/gmail/yahoo accounts hijacked. We
are receiving e-mails from their accounts that legitimately go through
the correct servers (hotmail,yahoo, etc.) and so they get passed through
our spam filters.
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:13 -0800, yongke wrote:
Thanks a lot for the reply, the emails our clients sends are under our
control and under our MTA. How exactly would I do this though? What I have
is just the email body in HTML from our clients, subject, to, etc, and some
account information.
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:37 -0600, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
Obviously we just have to tell the clients that they need to deal with
the various e-mail providers, but is there an effective way that I can
filter these messages out before my users see them without blacklisting
the address?
There's
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 20:22 +, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:37 -0600, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
Obviously we just have to tell the clients that they need to deal with
the various e-mail providers, but is there an effective way that I can
filter these messages out
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:08 -0600, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I meant blacklisting the sender address, not the MTA.
From what you're describing the senders are all forged by somebody who
bought or stole a list of valid hotmail etc. addresses and the
corresponding addresses in your domain, so
OK so today I got my 1st spam email from someone at a yahoo.com email
address. Basically SA didn't score it at all and 'Postgray' did it's
job. Below are the headers from SA:
X-spam-checker-version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on mail.iamghost.com
X-spam-level:
X-spam-status: No, score=0.0
Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 20:22 +, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:37 -0600, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
Obviously we just have to tell the clients that they need to deal with
the various e-mail providers, but is there an effective way that I can
filter these
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:17 +, Carlos Mennens wrote:
OK so today I got my 1st spam email from someone at a yahoo.com email
address. Basically SA didn't score it at all and 'Postgray' did it's
job. Below are the headers from SA:
Thats not a lot to go on: only a few headers and no message
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
We seem to be having a problem where clients that we interact with
regularly are having their hotmail/gmail/yahoo accounts hijacked. We
are receiving e-mails from their accounts that legitimately go through
the correct servers (hotmail,yahoo, etc.)
23 matches
Mail list logo
