Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

On 02/08/2017 02:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 2/8/2017 1:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >> While we’re waiting for that, can I just grab Util.pm and >> Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm out of trunk, or are there more dependencies than >> that to splice the fix back into 3.4.1? > I wouldn't be able to

Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

On 2/8/2017 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On February 8, 2017 2:27:56 PM EST, Alex wrote: Hi, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: While we’re waiting

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On 2/8/2017 1:36 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed some light on the process for you. All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the days of IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s). If it were validated

Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

On February 8, 2017 2:27:56 PM EST, Alex wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail >wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 1:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >>> >>> While we’re waiting for that, can I just grab Util.pm and >>> Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm

Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

Hi, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 2/8/2017 1:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >> >> While we’re waiting for that, can I just grab Util.pm and >> Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm out of trunk, or are there more dependencies than that to >> splice the fix back

Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

On 2/8/2017 1:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: While we’re waiting for that, can I just grab Util.pm and Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm out of trunk, or are there more dependencies than that to splice the fix back into 3.4.1? I wouldn't be able to say. EIther custom patch or run trunk would be my

Re: Can't Download SA-Update File

On 2/8/2017 1:16 PM, Wil Ussery wrote: I have a server that is hosted on a VPS in the Netherlands and have been running SpamAssassin for the past 3 months without any issues. During the past week I have received four cron job errors when I try to update the SA rules. It appears my IP address has

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed some light on the process for you. All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the days of IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s). If it were validated by the working group and passed up to the IAB

Re: Uninitialized values in URIDNSBL

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Re: 3.4.2 SA release > > Imminent. I'd like to start a push for a release, prioritizing bugs, etc. > > I've stepped up to be the Release Manager and I'm coordinating things at work > so I can dedicated time to the

Can't Download SA-Update File

I have a server that is hosted on a VPS in the Netherlands and have been running SpamAssassin for the past 3 months without any issues. During the past week I have received four cron job errors when I try to update the SA rules. It appears my IP address has been blacklisted as I can't ping

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On 2/8/2017 9:04 AM, Ruga wrote: Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. Most of them are request for comments. I'm well aware of the standards and don't appreciate being told to read them. That's a personal attack and you are also attacking others who are

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:01:35 -0500 Ruga wrote: > How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really wants me > to accept junk mail. Wow. You really don't know how to read, do you? What was unclear about my statement: Hey, you do you. You can do whatever you

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

>From: Ruga >Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 8:01 AM >How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really >wants me to accept junk mail. >In the snail mail box, we put in the trashcan everything that >does not carry a recipient address. Guess what? We do the >same

FINAL REMINDER: CFP for ApacheCon closes February 11th

Dear Apache Enthusiast, This is your FINAL reminder that the Call for Papers (CFP) for ApacheCon Miami is closing this weekend - February 11th. This is your final opportunity to submit a talk for consideration at this event. This year, we are running several mini conferences in conjunction with

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. Most of them are request for comments. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote: > Not all RFCs are standards. > Educate yourself. The personal attacks

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really wants me to accept junk mail. In the snail mail box, we put in the trashcan everything that does not carry a recipient address. Guess what? We do the same with e-mail. And we are happy about it. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM,

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote: Not all RFCs are standards. Educate yourself. The personal attacks aren't necessary. These RFCs are the basis for effectively 100% of the email on the planet for decades. If that's not a standard, what is?

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

Not all RFCs are standards. Educate yourself. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'> wrote: On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote: >I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. what are you talking about? 822, 2822 and

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:16:48 -0500 Ruga wrote: > It is precisely because I am responsible for other persons that I > make such rules based upon the RFC standard, No, you don't. You make the rules based on your misreading of RFC 822. RFC 822 permits this header: To:

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:33:49 -0500 Ruga wrote: > I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. No you don't. You follow your misunderstanding of the actual standard. RFC822 permits group syntax. It's right in the ABNF. Learn to read carefully. Here's a

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Thank you very much! I found some information about this problem. But I thought, this is a different problem because I thought that I have "HTTP" in both mails. This is wrong. I actually have HTTP in one mail and HTTPS in the other one. I completely overlooked this. I solved the problem

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

On 08.02.17 03:08, killerhorse wrote: Sorry I posted the wrong email header. Here that one I wanted to post: I think you can configure horde to send mail using SMTP authentication and the same credentials as for IMAP login. Clearly the sending IP appears in multiple blacklists and also has

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote: I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. what are you talking about? 822, 2822 and 5322 all define group address form as allowed. If the sender hides the recipients, why should I care delivering its junk to my valued accounts? you can

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

> you can do that for your *personal* mailserver but most admins on that > planet are also repsonsible for other peoles mailbox and you can't apply > such interpretation of rules their because your primary job is *to > receive and deliver emails* and not to reject them and educate the world > if

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Am 08.02.17 um 12:01 schrieb i...@lauf-forum.at: [...] What is the difference between the two mail headers? I don't see one. The only difference I can see ist, that the nonspam mail has only the IP of the sender in the header and the spam mail has also the reverse DNS entry of the IP in the

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

> So, Ruga, if you just want to BCC a bunch of people, what do you propose > [we] should be put into the To: header? I would use this or similar: To: no-re...@your.domain.com

Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)

A mailing list does not need to hide the recipients. This mailing list, for example, uses a good policy. Original Message Subject: Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity) Local Time: 8 February 2017 3:04 AM UTC Time: 8 February 2017 02:04 From:

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Zitat von Reindl Harald : Am 08.02.2017 um 11:16 schrieb i...@lauf-forum.at: Zitat von Reindl Harald : I also don't understand why I didn't have the problem till some months ago. I can't remember that I changed anything on the Mailserver

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Zitat von Reindl Harald : I also don't understand why I didn't have the problem till some months ago. I can't remember that I changed anything on the Mailserver configuration. Does anyone have an idea what's going wrong? that messages within the server itself are

Re: Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Sorry I posted the wrong email header. Here that one I wanted to post: Return-Path: Delivered-To: t...@schachenhofer.net Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lauf-forum.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11CD940017 for ;

Problem with Horde IMP ans Spamassassin

Hello, I'm using Spamassassin (through amavis) for some years and I never had any problem, but for a while spamassassin marks mails that are sent through Horde Webmail (IMP), to another mailaddress on my server, as spam. It seems to score the wrong IP address. Here the Header of one of the