Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm not hearing from people in this forum who are saying it works.
Even those who are SPF evangelists can't point to any significant
results in either blocking spam or passing ham.
Well it's no magic bullet, but nothing is. I use SPF to try and make my
domain less a target
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Are you still having this issue?
yes indeed
Wow. That's an incredibly bad idea. Allowing sa-update to install
Perl, or other, code (--allowplugins) without verifying that the code is
signed (--nogpg) is pretty risky. If a mirror gets hacked you'll run
On getting pgp to work... Following HOWTO at
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/GPG.KEY; worked fine
$ sa-update --import GPG.KEY
gpg: keyblock resource
`/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/secring.gpg': No
nevermind, it eventually created the directory and jeyring files... not
quite sure how that happened..
Lee Dilkie wrote:
On getting pgp to work... Following HOWTO at
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/GPG.KEY; worked
Folks,
For what ever reason, my sa-update to 3.30 has buggered itself. In my
efforts to debug it's now at the situation that SA has no rules to run
and I'm getting swamped.
How, if it's possible, can I tell SA and sa-update to use the 3.2
version of the ruleset? Simply deleting the tree and
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 18:44 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
For what ever reason, my sa-update to 3.30 has buggered itself. In my
efforts to debug it's now at the situation that SA has no rules to run
and I'm getting swamped.
The first sentence is seriously
?? Is there an archive I
can download? (I'm thinking of modifying sa-update to comment-out where
it removes the tmp files)
-lee
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 06:45 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Anyway, what comes to mind: Did you run sa-update after
Subject =~ /Approve/i^M
header __SUBJ_RE Subject =~ /^R[eE]:/^M
-lee
Lee Dilkie wrote:
no joy.
doesn't look like the ports version of SA comes with any stock rules
(nothing obvious in the ports dir tree, the work/ directory had en empty
72_active.cf file)... I deinstalled
::MIMEHeader
mimeheader __TVD_OUTLOOK_IMGContent-Id =~ /image\d+\.(?:gif|jpe?g|png)\@/
endif
Lee Dilkie wrote:
progress report.. commented out the place where the lint results were
checked and rules got installed.
looking at 72_active.cf I see a number of lines ending in CR (^M
of other changes too). Not sure why the gremlins were banished.
Interesting mystery.
-lee
Lee Dilkie wrote:
Final update folks, sorry for the noise if it's bothersome...
commented out the three offending lines in 72_active.cf and --lint
passed and I'm back up and running.
No idea what
Curious that SPF_FAIL is reported...
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
* 1.5 FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From: starts with many numbers
* 1.9 DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date
*
Hi Folks,
My nightly sa-upgrade caught this funny error and I cannot figure out...
Mar 25 04:15:45.030 [76697] info: body_0: 1547 base strings extracted in 37
seconds
rules: failed to run FUZZY_OCR test, skipping:
(Timeout::_run: Insecure dependency in open while running with -T
switch
Alex wrote:
Hi,
What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for
Chris,
Do you use sa-compile? I found that made a tremendous difference for me.
-lee
Chris wrote:
I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam and one
for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have become
slower and slower. For instance stats from last night
I reported this issue about a month ago and didn't receive a response.
So I set about fixing it myself.
First, I edited the sa-update script to not delete the rules that it
downloaded and was running lint on... I looked at those rules to see if
I could spot the problem, but I couldn't... looked
On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the chuckle
Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.
Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses
On 6/3/2010 12:02 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
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
the rule is flagging the fact that the servers are using
non-assigned address space.
On 6/17/2010 2:19 PM, gwilodailo wrote:
Hello all,
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).
:)
love your style.
-lee
On 9/26/2010 8:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
*Might* have been a dev question, but it actually is not. Not even close
to it. ;)
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 17:29 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Use of goto to jump into a construct is deprecated at
/usr/local/lib/perl5
On 11/10/2010 6:32 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 11/10/10 2:45 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.11.10 08:23, Per Jessen wrote:
I got the following reject this morning:
book...@example.com: host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550 Dynamic
Style reverse DNS
I recently gave up on greylisting after using it for years as well.
Two reasons really, one was the complaints from users (and I found that
they often asked folks to send mail to me twice to try and get mail to
work better and that was just embarrassing).
The second was that I've found that the
On 1/19/2011 10:02 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkie l...@dilkie.com wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect
You are confusing servers with *domains*. It's perfectly acceptable that
an outgoing mail server not accept incoming mail but the issue here is
whether is it is valid for a *domain* to be send-only.
It's an interesting question. For DSN's to work, you need to accept
email for that domain. But is
On 3/20/2011 8:48 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 3/20/11 6:04 AM, Matt Elson wrote:
body__PILL_PRICE_3
/free\s(?:pill|tablet|cap(?:sule|let))s/i
tflags __PILL_PRICE_3 multiple
Specifically, they're causing spamassassin to run in an endless loop
when the tflags
it's IPv4.5
-lee
On 3/31/2011 1:47 PM, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 31/03/2011 1:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
'from' dhl.com
(come on ups/dhl.. I know SPF is broken, but in this case it would
sure help is decide if the sending ip is authorized to send on your
behalf)
with some pretty
interesting.
the ipv6 address is correct, spock.dilkie.com was the source of the email.
however, the quoted ipv4 address, 216.191.234.70 is my employer's mail
gateway (Mitel), and I suspect the script grabbed the ip address I used
to send the test message to my server that was relayed to Yves.
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
Hmm, thanks for the info. It certainly explains things. Yeah,
SpamAssassin previously used to blaze through mail scans (everything
scanned in less than 3 seconds) on the same hardware. It's annoying
that Perl is getting slower over time and there's no
On 4/11/2012 8:23 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Lee Dilkie l...@dilkie.com wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
Hmm, thanks for the info. It certainly explains things. Yeah, SpamAssassin
previously used to blaze through mail scans (everything scanned
no idea, I read emails from both you and him and didn't see anything amiss.
Benny's signature does not parse as English so it's hard to say what it
means.
I wouldn't worry about it.
-lee
On 5/7/2013 8:56 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Whatever that means.
I think that if someone has cause
some folks are preachy and sensitive... like those bottom posters who
seem to like telling top posters how wrong they are.
I wouldn't worry about it.
But it was interesting to hear the history of the word plonk.. that
was cool.
-lee
On 5/7/2013 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
John Hardin
On 5/7/2013 12:11 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 j...@j4computers.com wrote:
What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense
was taken were met by reject messages.
Quite simply put, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu wants you to respect
31 matches
Mail list logo
