Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 01:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/20/2010 11:55 PM, Daniel Lemke wrote:
To hijack the thread: Does anyone know an optimum for message size
limit?
Ours is set to 2MB at the moment, but we have problems when receiving
large
Henrik K wrote:
But make sure you have SA 3.3, you should use the time_limit [2] local.cf
option. If you have latest SA and there are rules which hang, you should
identify them (can't remember the easiest way right now) and maybe post a
bug.
[1]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:27:57AM -0700, Daniel Lemke wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
But make sure you have SA 3.3, you should use the time_limit [2] local.cf
option. If you have latest SA and there are rules which hang, you should
identify them (can't remember the easiest way right now)
On 7/21/2010 10:03 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
On 7/21/2010 12:45 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 12:25 -0400, Adam Moffett wrote:
I've seen people post in the past that SA will demime text attachments,
and now someone says it won't.
Ted was answering a question about
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
behavior it seems that the rule is only guaranteed to fire if the stored
score for the tuple is significantly different than the message score, or
if the stored tuple has a very high stored score. But if the stored score
and
On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
It might not be worth the cpu cycles
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
*| *SECNAP Network
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:32:37 -0400
Eric A. Hall eh...@ntrg.com wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
behavior it seems that the rule is only guaranteed to fire if the
stored score for the tuple is significantly different than the
message score, or if
On 7/22/2010 11:24 AM, RW wrote:
I don't recall seeing anything like that. Are sure it's not due to the
IP address changing or AWL being short-circuited?
My testing is with local message files. If I use sa-awl to dump the
database I can see the counter increment, but the rule doesn't fire
All:
Just wondering how to change the user-local prefs directory
.spamassassin. I have tried all combinations of commands and options,
including
/usr/bin/spamassassin --configpath=/path/to/saprefs,
but I keep getting the response
config: no rules were found! Do you need to run 'sa-update'?
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 08:57 -0700, Neil Hodge wrote:
All:
Just wondering how to change the user-local prefs directory
.spamassassin. I have tried all combinations of commands and options,
including
/usr/bin/spamassassin --configpath=/path/to/saprefs,
man spamassassin-run
That would be
Please keep list-posts on list.
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:03 -0700, Neil Hodge wrote:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
man spamassassin-run
That would be --prefspath. Only used for per-user preferences, usually
does *not* contain any rules. The --configpath points
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
show logs
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not fqdn before it bounce :)
--
On tor 22 jul 2010 16:47:21 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote
On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
well if running awl as it was 3.2.x then its wasting
Karsten:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
Anyway, I still do not see why you want to change these to begin with.
If you want site-wide databases, check out the wiki and its information
how to do that. If the reason is anything else -- you probably should
not do it. ;)
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to change forged sender to something that is
not
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some
instances of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
and why not show logs ?
bounces is newer
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 11:05 -0700, Neil Hodge wrote:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
Anyway, I still do not see why you want to change these to begin with.
If you want site-wide databases, check out the wiki and its information
how to do that. If the reason is
- Original Message -
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: sa-update
Hello,
please configure your mailer to wrap lines below 80 characters per line.
72 to 75 is usually OK.
Thank you.
On
Karsten:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
So, did you just say, that you check mail for one account (you mentioned
a single ISP only) from two different places, namely home and work? That
scenario spells IMAP to me -- your *own* IMAP server at home.
That way, you will
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix would
have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances of SPF
fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 11:51 -0700, Neil Hodge wrote:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
So, did you just say, that you check mail for one account (you mentioned
a single ISP only) from two different places, namely home and work? That
scenario spells IMAP to me -- your
On 7/22/2010 11:51 AM, Neil Hodge wrote:
Karsten:
2010/7/22 Karsten Bräckelmannguent...@rudersport.de:
So, did you just say, that you check mail for one account (you mentioned
a single ISP only) from two different places, namely home and work? That
scenario spells IMAP to me -- your *own*
On 7/22/2010 12:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
One possible scenario I've been using a couple of times already:
fetchmail to periodically poll mail every few minutes. Ideally a local
SMTP server like postfix. procmail, which you already mentioned, feeding
the mail to spamc and delivering
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:45 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
A lot of people have gotten home mailservers running on so-called
dynamic IP addresses - when they have discovered that Comca$t will
continually approve DHCP re-lease requests for the same IP address.
Often people can go for 4-6
On 7/22/2010 11:03 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 21 jul 2010 19:09:55 CEST, Alexandre Chapellon wrote
You can have forged return-path and /or stollen credentials... in both
cases you look like a backscatter source.
i belive postfix is smart to
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:55 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 12:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The biggest downside IMHO is that you lose functionality on the RBL
For example at 9am spammer spews. At 9:15 spammer is listed in RBL. At
10:0m spammer mails you and your ISP
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a legitimate sender. Postfix
would have no way to be 'smart' about this (except for some instances
of SPF fail, but then why 'bounce'? Why not reject?).
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:55 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The truth is that ETRN is the way your supposed to do this kind of
thing, fetchmail is a hack. But even ETRN is not as good as your
own server.
And fetchmail is fairly buggy. When I was using it I found that if it
got interrupted,
On 7/22/2010 12:59 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:45 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
A lot of people have gotten home mailservers running on so-called
dynamic IP addresses - when they have discovered that Comca$t will
continually approve DHCP re-lease requests for the
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 21:24 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:55 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The truth is that ETRN is the way your supposed to do this kind of
thing, fetchmail is a hack. But even ETRN is not as good as your
own server.
And fetchmail is fairly
On 7/22/2010 1:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:55 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 12:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The biggest downside IMHO is that you lose functionality on the RBL
For example at 9am spammer spews. At 9:15 spammer is listed in
Thanks Ted for that example i could not have wrote in english myself.
Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 13:23 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
On 7/22/2010 11:29 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tor 22 jul 2010 20:03:18 CEST, Charles Gregory wrote
A forged sender looks no different than a
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:37 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 12:59 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I can only report what I've seen - I don't use comca$t myself and I
don't have a lot of direct experience with it.
Obviously, neither do I. :)
I believe we where not talking about
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:48 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 1:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yes, I do maintain some home systems like that. With freemailers or ISP
accounts it often isn't possible any other way. Polling interval of a
minute or two.
And if everyone polled
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 22:48 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Interesting. After years of fetchmail usage, and way above single-figure
millions of messages fetched (just a very conservative estimate), I have
yet to find even one mail stuck on a server.
It worked well for me for a couple of
Karsten, all:
I may be wrong, but I understand Neil is talking about a single, ISP
provided email address. Just about the same as any Gmail, Yahoo or GMX
address. There is NO way for a 5xx SMTP response. In fact, he was
explicitly talking about an IMAP account, so the mail has been delivered
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:54 -0700, Neil Hodge wrote:
I may be wrong, but I understand Neil is talking about a single, ISP
provided email address. Just about the same as any Gmail, Yahoo or GMX
address. There is NO way for a 5xx SMTP response. In fact, he was
explicitly talking about an
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:55:12 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
The biggest downside IMHO is that you lose functionality on the RBL
For example at 9am spammer spews. At 9:15 spammer is listed in RBL.
At 10:0m spammer mails you and your ISP picks up the mail because they
aren't
On 7/22/2010 2:18 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:48 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 1:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yes, I do maintain some home systems like that. With freemailers or ISP
accounts it often isn't possible any other way. Polling
I hadn't seen this mentioned here yet, though perhaps I missed it.
At CEAS last week, some researchers from Brazil presented a paper where they
tracked the evolution of spamming techniques against the parallel evolution of
SpamAssassin rulesets. It was heartening to see that each new SA
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 16:10 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 2:18 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Ted, I believe you're thinking too large-scale.
I may be wrong, but I understand Neil is talking about a single, ISP
provided email address.
OK, I missed that, I was assuming he
On 7/20/2010 9:07 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:23 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 7/16/2010 2:31 PM, Cliff Hayes wrote:
Hello,
Our webmail server is on the same server as sendmail and spamassassin.
I would like to filter outbound webmail but can't because the most recent
On 7/22/2010 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list.
That's correct.
At the very least, The AWL is a score averager, so the first message
from a given From: and source IP combination cannot be AWLed. This
definitely will cause a no-show. You need an
On 7/22/2010 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
It might not be worth the cpu cycles
Slight Correction: The
On 7/22/2010 11:07 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 7/22/2010 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
If the current code is intended, I'd like to request a new function call
that tells if the tuple exists and the number of times it has been seen
For what purpose? (Not trying to be mean, just asking,
45 matches
Mail list logo
