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 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 Tue, 20 Jul 2010, LuKreme wrote:
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to
bounce internal messages.
Caveat: As long as proper care is taken to send the bounce to the
authenticated sender of the mail and NOT just lamely use the 'From'
header! Still prefer an
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.4 required=6.3
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
Does UBuntu use 'iptables' firewall? Throw it in there, and
forget even the wasted initial SMTP connections.
- C
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 7/14/2010 11:27 AM, Emin Akbulut wrote:
I noticed randomly while I was testing SA. All I did is below:
WinSpamC realspam.txt result1.txt
NET STOP Spamassassin
NET START Spamassassin
WinSpamC realspam.txt result2.txt
WinSpamC realspam.txt
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote:
spamassassin.exe always calculates the same/correct score.
Good... Goood.
pamd second run reports only a few tests. Is it OK? I mean spamd runs
all test but only adds which one increases score to it's report? Or
these tests are processed tests
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
First run:
---
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=25.7 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT
What sticks out to me is that most of the missing score hits on
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Michelle Konzack wrote:
From: Coupon Dept. CouponDeptdOS_V`CcOP
IW^GIdATOn2PbJK_/v...@perezcentral.com
I realize that the spammers will soon recognize that you are filtering
them, but for the moment, why not score heavily on the 'unusual'
characters inside these coded
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
header LOC_WEIRD_FROM From =~ /[...@\]*[\^\`\ ]...@\]*@/
# note: the '[...@\]*' confines the match to within a local address part
Using From:addr instead is better and more accurate.
Provided the spammer doesn't use more than one address on the
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
In a CentOS 4.7 server I installed qmail + simscan + ClamAV + Spamassassin
3.3.0 that is working properly.
Now my intention is that when a mail is considered SPAM this is moved to a
folder called SPAM and in turn notifies the user (via email) so
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Louis Guillaume wrote:
(spamass-milter doesn't tell SA about auth) == [
rbl checks run against authenticated user's IP address
lack of ALL_TRUSTED for authenticated user's mail
That last one seems to be my problem. Does the patch fix this?
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010, sebast...@debianfan.de wrote:
i have a debian Lenny system with SpamAssassin version 3.3.1
running on Perl version 5.10.0.
Is it running properly?
I had installed clamav and i got a problem by installing
file::scan::clamav.
How is this connected to spamassassin? My
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Massimiliano Giovine wrote:
What does it do? How can i read the documentation of the spamassassin
behavior with whitelisting?
Firstly, the behaviour of the various whitelist options are described in
the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf documentation. There is a copy on the web
to the site-wide config, but it wouldn't make sense to have to
restart for every user change
Easy enough to test out... Make some changes and see if they take.
So, what are the complicated bits? :)
-C
2010/6/26 Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Massimiliano Giovine wrote
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I have no problem going over there but I am not convinced that the
Amavis program is the problem. The header field is changed by
spamassassin. Doesn't the email simply get handed to Spamassasin by
Amavis where the headers are modified by spam report
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail from a local address
to your mail server, rather than 'feeding' the original
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Hmmm, this mail came in and went straight to the users inbox. 1. Postfix
--- 2. Amavis ( Spamd/Clamd) --- 3. Postfix --- 4. Dovecot-deliver
So the problem is somewhere during the 2 --- 3 or step 3 or 4. Step 4 it
is unlikely since Deliver simply
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, gwilodailo wrote:
I've discovered that some mail between two of my clients (on separate hosts)
is getting flagged as spam, because of this rule (FH_HOST_IN_ADDRARPA). I'm
not at all an expert with spamassassin, and I'm having some difficulty
finding what this rule is about
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Gnanam wrote:
I want to integrate SpamAssassin in my web-based application to test spam
score of the email content...
If this is your own custom web software, then it is as simple as adding a
call to spamassassin (or spamc) in the same area of the script that
validates
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, andrewj wrote:
I am migrating to a new server with SpamAssassin. I have a well-known
email address which is a common spam target, and I want to set it up so
that only addresses on my whitelist are allowed, everything else is
automatically blacklisted. How do I set this up?
I got another 1MB spam today.
I still don't want to kill my system by attempting to scan every large
mail that comes in.
Has there been any progress on an 'option' to scan only text portions of
mail past a certain size limit and/or scan only the first X bytes? The
former is preferable
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Helmut Schneider wrote:
I then started from scratch and tried with SA 3.2.5. The particular
body_tests take only 5 seconds (instead of 30).
As I mentioned before, I noticed this difference myself, and presumed it
was just a characteristic of the 'improved' logic for
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Mark Martinec wrote:
Here is one common problem of 'certain mail messages'
taking a long time to process - unresolvable for now:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5590
Sorry, but that bug has been around since 3.2.3 - it would not explain a
sudden
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Helmut Schneider wrote:
with certain mails on FreeBSD 8.0 and SA 3.3.1 I have a performance
problem:
What distinguishes 'certain mails'? Length? Content? Mime attachements?
So the body tests take ~ 30 of 37 seconds. It's not a load problem,
I noticed a significant
On Fri, 28 May 2010, theTree wrote:
I received a spam email that scored zero on the SpamAssassin score. I think
it may be to do with the SPF_HELO_PASS that it scored - would someone be
able to give me some pointers?
I can't be certain with the munged headers, but it looks like
you are
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
A user reported the following FN to me which is written in an Arabic
character set. I have ok_locales en set, but I don't see any rules hitting
that appear language related. I also found the normalize_charset option, but
don't know if it will help or
I agree that full smaples are needed.
The % Subject alone is not enough.
But I would expect there is something 'common' to the body
that would combine in a meta rule for decent score with minimal fp...
So throw some examples up on pastebin.
- C
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Kenneth Porter wrote:
So throw some examples up on pastebin.
Here's some:
http://sewingwitch.com/ken/Stuff/foo.txt
I'm currently catching them with this:
header KP_PERCENT Subject =~ /\b-?[78][0-9]%/
describe KP_PERCENT 70-89 percent in subject
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Daniel Lemke wrote:
Am I seeing ghosts or is this the third time you asked the same question on
this list? Your first mail was already replied so I suggest you have a look
there to get your answers.
Daniel
Oh, good, it's not my mail server acting up again! (smile)
To OP:
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thanks - I did pretty much understand the tests. What I'm boggled about
is that they suddenly started firing, and then now suddenly do not.
This is perfectly consistent with the explanation I offered at the
beginning of this thread. A legitimate Google
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Why shouldn't it be possible?
SpamAssassin doesn't care where the mail comes from
Well, actually, it DOES. The test DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX being an example.
Which brings me back to the slightly confused feeling that I still get
over
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
There is one special group that will suffer from that decision: namely
SpamAssassin users within your network.
If they do report their spam to SpamCop using SpamAssassin's own report
mechanism, they are screwed
Why not just add a negative-scoring
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Greg Troxel wrote:
I use spamassass-milter and reject at about 8 points. Normally this is
fine. I just got a few false positives.
Hiyo!
Occasionally I see an e-mail with multiple addresses on the 'From:'
header. (not the envelope)
Can anyone think of legitimate uses for multiple From: addresses?
Or could I just use a rule like:
header From =~ /\...@.*\@/
- C
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010, David B Funk wrote:
There's an easy fix for that FP, just use the 'From:addr =~ '
varient of the header rule. That ignores the comment part
of the 'From:' address and only examines the stuff inside
the 'b...@blah.blah' part.
Avoid FP, yes, but also avoid the live header
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Also, why
body __SOMMA m'\Wsomma\W'i
doesn't fire? I have the Rule2XSBody plugin active. Maybe somehow it wasn't
compiled? But why, then?
Do ANY of the rules in your local.cf fire? Try putting a test rule that
will 'always' fire
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Do ANY of the rules in your local.cf fire?
Yes, they do. The __IN_ITALIAN rule referred by SOMMA and SOMMA2, in
example.
Just a side thought, but are we checking for SOMMA or SOMA? One 'm' or
two? FRT_SOMA2
Try 'retyping' the __SOMMA rule
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Martin Caine wrote:
Received: from host[my_ip_address].in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO
?192.168.32.10?) (mar...@[my_domain_dot_com]@[my_ip_address])
by [our_servers_hostname].memset.net with SMTP; 26 Apr 2010 09:26:45 -
If 'my_ip_address' is truly 'internal' then you
You used the phrase 'internal' to describe the IP from which you are
sending your mail. If you are trying to send mail by connecting from an
untrusted (external) dynamic IP address (including blackberries) then you
need to use some form of SMTP authentication on the connection to verify
that
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
I have yet to figure out why people think it's a good idea to relay
mail from your domain host to your ISP account (especially when the two are
different companies)
Do not mistake the following statement for any form of approval :)
To many
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Royce Williams wrote:
I will also file a bug to suggest updates to the *_networks language
that is in direct contradiction to the advice in other parts of this
thread.
One thing I might add: It seemed to me that at certain points in the
discussion there was confusion as
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Seriously, you shouldn't be asking that question. The fundamental flaw
here is in the assumption that an all-number mailbox user ID is virtually
certain to be spam. It is not. Clearly, the default score assignment to
that rule is too high.
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
Look at the regex I posted It covers all cases with six leading
digits that is not a purely numeric address.
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
Nope - only that a character after the first six is a legal address
character but non-numeric.
Hmmm My bad.
I
Realize this is OT, and that even the instigation is OT :)
But I'm hoping someone here just KNOWS 'rpm'. and can help...
(Or can point me to the best forum for a quick answer)
While attempting to use rpm on RH9 to update to a newer set of clamav
packages, the rpm process locked up, and I had
OT - RPM
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
I'm currently trying 'rpm --rebuilddb' but it's just sitting there, and
I've got a feeling it has locked-up too
You've got to delete the __db.* files in /varlib/rpm before you run
--rebuilddb
I'm trying that now, but don't have much
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:
You've got to delete the __db.* files in /varlib/rpm before you run
--rebuilddb
That worked. Thanks! (wiping brow with relief)
- C
Rajesh M wrote:
if you standard score is say : 5.0
you can write a header rule to allocate a positive or negative score if
the to field contains the specific domain
example
required_score 5
header header1 To =~ /example1\.com/i
score header1 -1
Your rule would not work with Bcc mail (for
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Phill Edwards wrote:
actually posting to the right place! Is this the official spamassassin
mailing list?
Your own spam filter might be eating a lot of the messages?
Try setting a rule to score -100 on mail received from apache.org...
- C
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Keith De Souza wrote:
Sorry as I'm new to SA can you elaborated what you mean by glue?
Geek terminology for the program, script or other mechanism that
'connects' your MTA and your SA. Ie. The calling MTA or its script must do
the size check, then decide *whether* to
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Henrik K wrote:
SA 3.3 has special handling for truncated messages
Excuse me for not *thinking* earlier, but it occurs to me that there is a
very big drawback to *truncating* a message before passing it to SA, as
opposed to my original request/suggestion to *flag*
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Mark Martinec wrote:
and let it handle arbitrary size messages by avoiding its current
paradigm of keeping the entire message in memory.
Is there really a problem with the in-memory size? I would have thought
the major concern was the processing time for evaluating
(Subject line changed to remove the 'flag' to developers)
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
.. But then again, this is a topic for the dev
list [1] to start a discussion, not here.
Uh, no, I'm not a developer. And the description of that list
specifically says...
For
Literally, Mega-Spam. I just got a spam with 1MB of images.
My suggestion has been made before, but I would like to ask that it now
be taken a bit more seriously. SA needs an option to allow efficient
'partial' scanning of large e-mails, so that, for example, we can
peform all the valuable
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You did read the entire thread, right? :) There's nothing new about
this. Moreover, this still is a rare occurrence. Note even Charles, who
started this thread, claims to have received *one* such spam. And it
appears to be his first. ;)
Last
Hallo!
Follow-up on SA 3.3.1 upgrade yesterday
My system changes log reported the addition of several files
named .razor/... which brought to my attentino that 'RAZOR2' tests
are now enabled by default in SA 3.3.1
Is there anything that I should be concerned about? It seems to be
In case anyone else uses a script to scan the SA injected message headers
to build log records (to detail matched tests, etc), and that script cares
about the *order* of the headers, then please take note that in 3.3.1 the
position of the 'report_safe 0' command in your .cf files relative to
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Michael Scheidell wrote:
(you using the freebsd SA port?)
CentOS 4 (RHEL 4) rpm from rpmforge
- C
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, fakessh wrote:
I have different problems with latest spamassassin from rpmforge. it does
not start
Did you run sa-update as per my warning?
- C
Had a nice HEART-STOPPING moment this morning! Logged in and
found my mailbox had no new mail! WTF!??
Checked the logs and discovered that my nightly automatic updates via YUM
had pulled in the new SA 3.3.1-3.
WARNING: Centos does NOT run the required sa-update to get all the files
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, R P Herrold wrote:
WARNING: Centos does NOT run the required sa-update to get all the files
into shape to run with the new SA engine! SA will ERROR.
rather: ... some third-party repository packagings, oriented to be used on
CentOS, do not ...
Correct.
My warning more
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Alex wrote:
This is what I have:
/^[^a-z]{0,10}(http:\/\/|www\.)(\w+\.)+(com|net|org|biz|cn|ru)\/?[^
]{0,20}[a-z]{0,10}$/msi
My bad. I got an option wrong. Please remove the 'm' above.
I always get it backwards. According to 'man perlre' (the definitive
resource for SA
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Alex wrote:
rawbody __BODY_ONLY_URI
/^[^a-z]{0,10}(http:\/\/|www\.)(\w+\.)+(com|net|org|biz|cn|ru)\/?[^
]{0,20}[^a-z]{0,10}$/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 Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
If that's not an option, how about a meta rule for FROM_YAHOO and
__HAS_ANY_URI (this rule exists in SA).
Lots of ham may contain a URI, but how much ham contains ONLY a URI?
Rough outline of rule, untested.
rawbody __BODY_ONLY_URI
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The TextCat plugin. Even part of stock SA, though not enabled by
default. Supports per-user settings.
(nod) For reasons specific to my MTA, I can't run SA 'per user', but I can
choose the most common languages (en fr) in our system's mail and
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
take a look at http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets
and search to German Language Ruleset.
H. I guess this goes back to my inquiry about the Brazilian spam
I'm still looking for a way (hopefully) to simply identify the
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
describe FORGED_YAHOO Yahoo with non-Yahoo Reply-to address
header __FORGED_YH1 From =~ /\...@yahoo\.com/i
header __FORGED_YH2 Reply-to =~ /\...@yahoo\.com/i
meta FORGED_YAHOO (__FORGED_YH1 !__FORGED_YH2)
The problem with this
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
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,
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
It's clear you either haven't read or haven't understood what Kai wrote,
which btw was spot on.
More attitude. Yeesh. Kai has an opinion. And in fairness, I give his
arguments some serious weight. It's not black-n-white. But this attitude
that he/you
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Brian wrote:
I'm happy to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
I use Mail Avenger for a front end SMTP Says it all
- Charles
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Second: you are completely misguided in your wish to reject mail after
SMTP data stage.
You may certainly argue for YOUR preference (and I emphasise *preference*)
for the most 'efficient' way to run an SMTP server, but there is nothing
sufficiently
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
reject them in/after DATA stage in a real world scenario.
You ignore my arguments. Hardly surprising.
You reword yours, but say nothing new.
It makes only sense if you are die-hard
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Andy Dorman wrote:
So even if we can decide an email is spam before the DATA stage, it
makes no difference since we have to store the thing for a while anyway
in case the user wants to look for something caught that shouldn't be.
(nod) To rely on this methodology requires
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, David Morton wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
Indeed, it makes far LESS sense to have a system accept mail but send it
to a spam folder.
Maybe in your particular situation, but you can hardly apply that to
everyone
(nod) It was subject to the conditions I consider 'wide
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have them
believe it was delivered when it was
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It is NOT illegal to break a contract.
It's called 'fraud'. Look it up.
No, sorry, it's NOT fraud. Fraud requires proving an intentional
misrepresentation.
Well duh. Did you think I meant something else?
Breaking a contract does not imply that
Hello!
I think I asked about this once before. I keep getting foreign language
spams with noobvious (to me) indicators that I could test for
Can anyone take a look at this crud and see a header or flag/type that I
could score in SA?
http://pastebin.com/3gGiaZVK
(Note: post is set to
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
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 Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth - if any of you have domains you don't use you can
point them to my virus harvesting server for spam harvesting.
(SNIP)
The sender has to do
several other things in order to be blacklisted.
Simple question: Does your 'harvester' have
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, damuz wrote:
Secondly, it occurred to me that all the (legit) mail to us will only be to
a handful of email addresses and much of the spam still getting through is
sent to spurious recipie...@mydomain.com.
So with this in mind, is it useful or advisable to setup those legit
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
Your best bet is to check if mail claiming to be from paypal is, in fact,
from paypal.
Actually, I think his problem is that the reference to paypal has been
buried in an attachment, described as 'type' of 'octet/binary' so that SA
won't think it is text
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, David B Funk wrote:
Looks like he may have to use a 'full' test to look for the references to
paypal
Been there, done that, doesn't work.
AFAIK SA ignores 'octet/binary' attachments for the rule engine. None of
the rules that I tried (uri, body, full, rawbody) saw
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I know I'm tired from repeatedly deleting clearly off-topic posts
without even caring to open them. Wonder how the majority of subscribers
feels about it.
Well, there was a posting with some spam-related SPF stats the other day
that proved very
Hallo!
Back on topic :)
I happened to notice that 'tflags userconf' was specified for a few tests
that, as far as I could tell have on user configurable parameters.
Example (3.2.5):
25_spf.cf:tflags SPF_PASS nice userconf
So what 'user configuration' is needed for
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm guessing it's also used to exclude rules from score optimization.
There is a comment in 25_spf.cf:
# these are userconf so that scores are set by hand
tflags SPF_PASS nice userconf net
tflags SPF_HELO_PASSnice userconf net
Ah. I
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Don't make me stomp my foot (Homer Simpson).
LOL would you believe that someone in my girlfriend's computer class
actually *said* to the instructor that famous Homerism, Where is the
ANY key? Yes, really. And they are old enough to
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Fri 26 Feb 2010 06:50:12 PM CET, Marc Perkel wrote
And - SPF was originally introduced as a spam fighting solution.
alot of lies out there
Okay, this is getting stupid. Everyone on this thread, go to:
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Feb-10 11:31, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Uhm, what's with your real name? (Rewritten in RE style.) How do you
pronounce *82* f's in a row?
Fff for 8.2 seconds.
That's ten fs a second? Wow. Fast little F'er.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
i still see lot of junk mail coming with different charecters, i do not
even read them clearly
how can i stop those kind of emails
Reject languages you can't read at SMTP time?
I've been noticing more 'foreign language' spams that do not use
a
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
My experience has been that Outlook in particular (not Outlook Express
or its descendant Windows (Live) Mail) does NOT in fact display SMTP
error messages exactly as the server spits them out. :(
Sorry. You've heard that old phrase goes without saying?
Slightly OT. To get 'control' of what my MX does at SMTP time I installed
a simple SMTP daemon called 'Mail Avenger', which acts as a front end to
my spamassassin and postfix. It's scripting capabilties allow for such
interesting things as tracking the volume of mail sent by any one IP over
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
*nod* This is the biggest question I still see remaining; who maintains the
blacklist? How many spams can come from an MTX-approved IP before it
can/should be blacklisted?
Why do we need any new/special blacklist at all? If the spamming from a
given
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you want
everything else to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you
want everything else to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, smfabac wrote:
Now that we're all on the same page. How do I find out why sa-learn
is not processing the legal not-spam file? To re-cap, sa-learn --spam
--mbox isspam works but sa-learn --ham --mbox not-spam is not
working.
Well, I would expect if this suggestion were
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
It might be useful to compare with MTA MARK and see what the status of
that proposal currently is:
http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/
Amazing. Justin, you must have known about that one - you can't
possibly have
1 - 100 of 385 matches
Mail list logo
