At 15:11 19-03-10, Chris Richman wrote:
If anyone knows of a reliable way to identify mailing list addresses,
I'd love to know so we could block mail to them. Currently, we just do
it when it's reported to us. I suppose one approach might be to block
list.* domains or email addresses in the
Bret Miller-4 wrote:
I worked on it for a while on Windows Server 2008R2, and concluded that
I was not going to get it running in 64-bit ActivePerl. There were just
too many dependencies that would not compile or were missing features in
x64 mode. So I cleared it all off, reinstalled
John Hardin, 2010-03-21 01:01:
The offending rule is FILL_THIS_FORM_LONG from 72_active.cf.
I'll look into it.
Fix is in local masscheck testing.
Fix committed.
But not online yet? At least not with 3.3.1's sa-update, it still takes
nearly 5 minutes to scan this message (last hit is
At 15:11 19-03-10, Chris Richman wrote:
If anyone knows of a reliable way to identify mailing list addresses,
I'd love to know so we could block mail to them. Currently, we just do
it when it's reported to us. I suppose one approach might be to block
list.* domains or email addresses in the
Warren Togami wrote on Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:13:10 -0400:
I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file contained
within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on Fedora
or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on
Hi
i am new in Spamassassin, anyone can say me if this rules are correct ?
header MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93 From =~ /txxa\.px...@makk\.fi/
header MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93 To =~ /exxent\.net/
meta MY_FILTRAGE_93 (MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93 MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93)
score MY_FILTRAGE_93 200
(xx
Stephane MAGAND wrote:
Hi
i am new in Spamassassin, anyone can say me if this rules are correct ?
header MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93 From =~ /txxa\.px...@makk\.fi/
header MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93 To =~ /exxent\.net/
meta MY_FILTRAGE_93 (MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93 MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93)
score
Ned Slider wrote:
Stephane MAGAND wrote:
Hi
i am new in Spamassassin, anyone can say me if this rules are correct ?
header MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93 From =~ /txxa\.px...@makk\.fi/
header MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93 To =~ /exxent\.net/
meta MY_FILTRAGE_93 (MY_FILTRAGE_FROM_93
On Monday March 22 2010 11:49:22 Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Btw, shouldn't --timeout-child on spamd limit the time spent?
I have set it to 30, but that does not seem to work.
The signal handling in 3.3 is left at perl default of
'safe handling', which means that alarm signal cannot
interrupt
header__MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93 To =~ /\...@exxent\.net/i
This matches if @exxent.net is in the To: header line. It doesn't
match all mail sent to recipients at exxent.net-- only mail with their
address in the To: header line.
Of course this may be exactly what you want to do.
Joseph
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
Have tried upgrading Spamassassin 3.2.5 to 3.3.1 and the result was a
disaster. Currently have the spamassin* of one version and
perl-Mail-spamassassin* of another.
Precisely how did you go about upgrading? If you upgrade using a different
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:45:53 -0700, John Rudd jr...@ucsc.edu wrote:
Some people need to put in some alternate values for DNS timeouts, but
if you've got a local caching name server, you typically don't need
that.
There aren't any actual bugs in it that I'm aware of, so I haven't
released a
I recently received a FP complaint on a message that hit FREEMAIL_REPLY.
The FP complaint is not in a format that would be useful for posting,
but I don't believe that's going to be necessary.
Here's what happened:
some_u...@comcast.net saves a web page and sends it as an e-mail
On 22.3.2010 16:51, micah anderson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:45:53 -0700, John Rudd jr...@ucsc.edu wrote:
Some people need to put in some alternate values for DNS timeouts, but
if you've got a local caching name server, you typically don't need
that.
There aren't any actual bugs in it
In my environment, postfix passes the message onto the exchange server
so once it releases the message, I don't have anything to train bayes
with since it's deleted.
Add an 'always_bcc' directive to your Postfix configuration to grab a copy of
all mail passing through it and send it to a
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 07:51, micah anderson mi...@riseup.net wrote:
From a user who has unfortunately been saddled with a dynamic IP that
previously was used by a spammer. No amount of explanation to these
users about this is going to assuage their feelings, and there isn't
really anything
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Alex wrote:
rawbody __BODY_ONLY_URI
/^[^a-z]{0,10}(http:\/\/|www\.)(\w+\.)+(com|net|org|biz|cn|ru)\/?[^
]{0,20}[^a-z]{0,10}$/msi
This allows for some amount (up to ten chars?) of text before and
after the URI if I'm reading that right, correct?
Nope. With the /ms flags ^
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, micah anderson wrote:
Many users are complaining and when I finally get some useful messages
with headers to analyze I am finding something like the following:
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.3 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
* [213.6.61.151
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing to
distinguish the mail you got an FP report on from 419 spams that put the
pitch and reply address in an attachment.
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing
to distinguish the mail you got an FP report on from 419 spams that put
the
micah anderson mi...@riseup.net wrote:
Yeah, I've been having problems recently which I think are related to me
using both Zen/PBL along with the Botnet plugin weighted to score level
5, even if I were to have it lower at 3 it would still be too much.
Are you using the PBL appropriately?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing
to distinguish the mail you got
On Mon, March 22, 2010 9:01 am, Bill Landry wrote:
On 3/22/2010 4:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Warren Togami wrote on Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:13:10 -0400:
I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file
contained
within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work
On 2010/03/22 1:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:51:20 -0400
micah anderson mi...@riseup.net wrote:
Yeah, I've been having problems recently which I think are related to
me using both Zen/PBL along with the Botnet plugin weighted to score
level 5, even if I were to have it lower at 3 it would still be too
much.
If
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on RHEL as well. And it
doesn't contain unwanted dependencies (like the one from rpmforge
I'm curious about these unwanted dependencies, since I've never had
trouble with that using the RPMForge package. About the only
Micah anderson wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:51:20 -0400:
This brings it over the 8 threshold, although it is a legitimate email
From a user who has unfortunately been saddled with a dynamic IP
Most ISPs reject direct mail from non-static IP addresses nowadays. If you
combine this with John
Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:01:26 -0700:
I tried it with Fedora 12
I didn't say anything about Fedora.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Mon, March 22, 2010 10:31 am, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:01:26 -0700:
I tried it with Fedora 12
I didn't say anything about Fedora.
But Warren certainly did in his original post. And BTW, he didn't say
anything about CentOS is his original post, but that
Actually, I was using the x64 bit version of AP, hence the need to use the
CPAN route for NetAddr-IP as I couldn't find a repo that included it for
x64.
Have tried your suggestions below using x86 AP, and, still not working.
Nmake fails with the same error.
quote=Error
optional module missing:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Micah anderson wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:51:20 -0400:
This brings it over the 8 threshold, although it is a legitimate email
From a user who has unfortunately been saddled with a dynamic IP
Most ISPs reject direct mail from non-static IP addresses
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, weirdbeardmt wrote:
What else can I try?
Running it on a *NIX box like God intended?
GDR... :)
To be serious, have you considered setting up a Linux VM that is dedicated
to hosting spamd?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
I didn't try to make spamc with mine. If
you're doing that, it is possible that there could be a configuration
situation that prevents it. I'm not sure why else it would fail. For
the few items I had to manually compile and install I used Visual
Studio 2008 Express.
Bret
On 3/22/2010 10:40
John Hardin wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:47:35 -0700 (PDT):
How do you reject mail from a non-static IP without doing a DNSBL lookup
(e.g. Zen)?
we are talking about lookups from SA here ;-) And these you can disable if
you reject such mail, anyway.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive
If only it was that simple. SA is actually required as a component of a
bigger system which actually has NO business being near a Windows server,
but unfortunately our sys admin team have no experience of admin-ing
Linux... nor any desire to learn.
So I'm afraid I'm stuck with it.
What is
Kris Deugau wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:25:34 -0400:
I'm curious about these unwanted dependencies, since I've never had
trouble with that using the RPMForge package.
I can't tell you as this was at least one year ago. I would have to change
my priorities settings and then pull down an rpm
Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:37:12 -0700:
But Warren certainly did in his original post.
If you didn't reply to me I would ask you to reply to the message you reply
to instead and don't quote me ;-)
And BTW, he didn't say
anything about CentOS is his original post, but that
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, weirdbeardmt wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
To be serious, have you considered setting up a Linux VM that is
dedicated to hosting spamd?
If only it was that simple. SA is actually required as a component of a
bigger system which actually has NO business being near a Windows
On 3/22/2010 9:11 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
header__MY_FILTRAGE_TO_93 To =~ /\...@exxent\.net/i
This matches if @exxent.net is in the To: header line. It doesn't
match all mail sent to recipients at exxent.net-- only mail with their
address in the To: header line.
Of course
39 matches
Mail list logo
