J Doe skrev den 2024-05-19 23:57:
On 2024-05-17 23:13, Noel Butler wrote:
On 18/05/2024 08:14, J Doe wrote:
Here is an example entry:
10-May-2024 05:34:39.024 lame-servers: info: REFUSED unexpected
RCODE resolving 'rbldns10.sorbs.net/A/IN': 108.59.172.201#53
SORBS has been
On 2024-05-17 23:13, Noel Butler wrote:
On 18/05/2024 08:14, J Doe wrote:
Hello,
I make use of SpamAssassin 4.0.0 on a low volume e-mail server. I also
run my own validating resolver with Bind 9.18.27 on the e-mail server.
The only piece of software I have in my e-mail stack that uses
On 5/17/24 3:17 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hi guys,
I have configured exclusion for some common domains e.g. gov.sk in SA:
uridnsbl_skip_domain [...] gov.sk slovensko.sk
However it seems that that domain is still queried:
9826 68.951573 127.0.0.1 → 127.0.0.1 DNS 104 Standard
On 2024-05-18 at 10:26:54 UTC-0400 (Sat, 18 May 2024 16:26:54 +0200)
Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
Is there any difference between using spamc -L and sa-learn ?
Yes. The compiled-C spamc binary loads no Perl, it just talks over a
socket to spamd, which is
> On 18 May 2024, at 17:10, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 2024-05-18 at 10:25:28 UTC-0400 (Sat, 18 May 2024 16:25:28 +0200)
> Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I use Spamassassin 4 on Ubuntu 24.04.
>>
>> I have configured SQL for storing user
On 2024-05-18 at 10:25:28 UTC-0400 (Sat, 18 May 2024 16:25:28 +0200)
Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
I use Spamassassin 4 on Ubuntu 24.04.
I have configured SQL for storing user preferences. Things work fine,
but I am getting these errors on my logs:
Sat May
Hi,
Is there any difference between using spamc -L and sa-learn ? I noticed that
the later is way slower. I don’t use a journal for local updating, so both
write directly to the database.
Best,
Francis
Hi,
I use Spamassassin 4 on Ubuntu 24.04.
I have configured SQL for storing user preferences. Things work fine, but I am
getting these errors on my logs:
Sat May 18 16:22:21 2024 [75733] info: config: not parsing, administrator
setting: use_pyzor\t1
Sat May 18 16:22:21 2024 [75733] info:
On 18/05/2024 08:14, J Doe wrote:
Hello,
I make use of SpamAssassin 4.0.0 on a low volume e-mail server. I also
run my own validating resolver with Bind 9.18.27 on the e-mail server.
The only piece of software I have in my e-mail stack that uses SORBS is
SpamAssassin. I have noticed in my
Hello,
I make use of SpamAssassin 4.0.0 on a low volume e-mail server. I also
run my own validating resolver with Bind 9.18.27 on the e-mail server.
The only piece of software I have in my e-mail stack that uses SORBS is
SpamAssassin. I have noticed in my resolver logs multiple entries where
Hi guys,
I have configured exclusion for some common domains e.g. gov.sk in SA:
uridnsbl_skip_domain [...] gov.sk slovensko.sk
However it seems that that domain is still queried:
9826 68.951573127.0.0.1 → 127.0.0.1DNS 104 Standard query 0xbffe A
mail.gov.sk.multi.uribl.com OPT
in
On 2024-05-13 at 20:09:33 UTC-0400 (Tue, 14 May 2024 10:09:33 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
This morning one of our ent_domains DMARC weekly report from a third
party was listed as spam by SA which took the wording
Not_percent-twenty_Resolved and passed it off to URI checks
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:10 PM Noel Butler wrote:
> This morning one of our ent_domains DMARC weekly report from a third party
> was listed as spam by SA which took the wording
> Not_percent-twenty_Resolved and passed it off to URI checks adding
> dot.com to it when there is no dot com after
On 14.05.24 10:09, Noel Butler wrote:
This morning one of our ent_domains DMARC weekly report from a third
party was listed as spam by SA which took the wording
Not_percent-twenty_Resolved and passed it off to URI checks adding
dot.com to it when there is no dot com after it, and a raw
This morning one of our ent_domains DMARC weekly report from a third
party was listed as spam by SA which took the wording
Not_percent-twenty_Resolved and passed it off to URI checks adding
dot.com to it when there is no dot com after it, and a raw message
search of that message in less in
On 2024-05-13 at 08:09:04 UTC-0400 (Mon, 13 May 2024 14:09:04 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
i write here so in hope to start a debate on it, is there a code
change any where to handle this ?
That's not a SA issue. Nothing SA does can fix it
The change (in Debian) that fixed
i write here so in hope to start a debate on it, is there a code change
any where to handle this ?
Am 2024-05-13 04:33, schrieb jdow:
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
The mail/report is authentic. They already corrected this "error" or
changed the sending server. In today's report FORGED_SPF_HELO is 0.001
and the score is below 5 :)
On 20240512
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
On 20240512 06:56:59, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status
Thomas Barth skrev den 2024-05-12 15:56:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes,
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
On 12.05.24 06:39, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
as it was already said, it's not Debian, it's default score in amavis.
Even the original header is in the amavis format:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
probably they should not be doing that. as a packager, I fix bugs
(and file upstream bug reports), but it's usually linuxy
nonportability things that are clearly bugs (test ==, hardcoded lists
of accepted
Am 2024-05-12 01:08, schrieb jdow:
Methinks this is a perfect example of "one man's spam is another man's
ham." Or in my case, "A woman's spam is often a man's ham."
I like spam when it's well designed. That's why I no longer reject it on
my newly set up mail server. I just want them all to
On 11/05/2024 03:40, Bill Cole wrote:
So what? domain owners state hard fail it SHOULD be hard failed,
irrespective of if YOU think you know better than THEM or not, if we
hardfail we accept the risks that come with it.
In practice, there is a prioritizing of whose wishes I prioritize on
On 20240511 14:56:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thomas Barth writes:
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they
Am 2024-05-11 23:49, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
The value 6.31 does not even appear in the spamassassin source
package.
Sorry, the values are overwritten via the Amavis defaults.
cat /etc/debian_version
10.13
egrep -nri "sa_tag_level_deflt|sa_kill_level_deflt" /etc
Thomas Barth writes:
> Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
>> I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
>> that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
>> of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously)
>> adjusting that
On 2024-05-11 20:26:59 +0200, Thomas Barth wrote:
> Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
[...]
> > > found in
> > >
> > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
> > > tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
> > > DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain that
they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments of
scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously) adjusting
that threshold daily based on current scores.
On 2024-05-11 at 14:26:59 UTC-0400 (Sat, 11 May 2024 20:26:59 +0200)
Thomas Barth
is rumored to have said:
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 +
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
Hi guys,
thank you all for your advice!
Am 2024-05-10 22:39, schrieb Bowie Bailey:
The rules with the low scores are not intended to contribute to the
spam score for the email. They only have a defined score at all
because if the score is 0, SA will not run the rule.
It works like this:
On 5/10/2024 2:57 AM, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They
can be used in metas in conjunction with
On 2024-05-10 at 14:15:56 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 14:15:56 -0400)
Bill Cole
is rumored to have said:
> On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700)
> jdow
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
>>> Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren
oh dear, when do he stop ?
Original besked
Emne: Re: Rule: "1.0 R_DCD 90% of .com. is spam"
Dato: 2024-05-10 20:17
Afsender: "Reindl Harald (gmail)"
Modtager: Benny Pedersen
Am 10.05.24 um 20:14 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2024-05-10 18:46:
On
On 2024-05-10 at 11:00:45 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT))
John Hardin
is rumored to have said:
> Note that poorly-performing rules may get a score that looks informational,
> but that may change over time based on the corpora.
IOW: rules that in themselves are not good enough
On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
> On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
>> Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
>>> Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
>>> used in metas in
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2024-05-10 18:46:
On 10.05.24 15:36, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
The ikea mail was received through ...
mta-numbers.ikea.com.sparkpostmail.com and is a request for feedback.
The SA rule says ...
header R_DCD Received =~ /\.com\./
I still do not know where the
On 2024-05-10 at 11:08:53 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 15:08:53 +)
Rupert Gallagher
is rumored to have said:
> R_DCD
That string does not occur anywhere in the SpamAssassin distribution, neither
in the code nor in the rules, *including* the rules that are not currently
performing well
On 2024-05-09 at 17:21:07 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 07:21:07 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
> So what? domain owners state hard fail it SHOULD be hard failed, irrespective
> of if YOU think you know better than THEM or not, if we hardfail we accept
> the risks that come with it.
On 10.05.24 15:36, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
The ikea mail was received through ... mta-numbers.ikea.com.sparkpostmail.com
and is a request for feedback.
The SA rule says ...
header R_DCD Received =~ /\.com\./
I still do not know where the rule comes from, DCD may actually mean
dot-com-dot,
Ahhh
The ikea mail was received through ... mta-numbers.ikea.com.sparkpostmail.com
and is a request for feedback.
The SA rule says ...
header R_DCD Received =~ /\.com\./
I still do not know where the rule comes from, DCD may actually mean
dot-com-dot, and perhaps it is true that they are
I only have stock and KAM, and it is definitely not a custom rule of mine.
Original Message
On May 10, 2024, 17:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.05.24 15:08, Rupert Gallagher wrote: >My local evidence does not
> support the general claim that 90% of .com is spam. > >I
On 10.05.24 15:08, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
My local evidence does not support the general claim that 90% of .com is spam.
I just received a mail from informat...@info.email.ikea.com marked as spam,
with positive R_DCD. The rule did not trigger on mail from other .com addresses.
I do not know
My local evidence does not support the general claim that 90% of .com is spam.
I just received a mail from informat...@info.email.ikea.com marked as spam,
with positive R_DCD. The rule did not trigger on mail from other .com addresses.
I do not know what R_DCD means, and search indexes do not
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Thomas Barth wrote:
So now I repeat my question: is it possible to increase the minimum
value to 0.1 by default?
Not really.
The score for a rule is either a fixed value assigned by the rule
developer or a dynamic value calculated by masscheck nightly. There isn't
a
On 20240509 23:57:12, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with
On 09.05.24 20:41, Thomas Barth wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned.
Those rules may be tested in the present.
They also may be informative, e.g. DMARC_MISSING or SPF_PASS
rules with score 0 are not used so using 0 is not
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They
can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help
determine ham or
On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can
be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine
ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign
is not present. A small score
On 09/05/2024 22:47, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign is not
present. A small score indicates that the rule did hit, so the sign it is
Hello,
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned. The total score could be much higher. Do I
have to define all the checks myself with a desired value?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
On 2024-05-08 at 19:18:28 UTC-0400 (Wed, 8 May 2024 19:18:28 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
Hi, I'm using the latest version of SA from trunk (although I don't
think
that matters) and trying to make adjustments to rules on a particular
false-positive email that was quarantined by amavis
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
spam, you can make your SpamAssassin always trust SPF failures
absolutely. I would not recommend that. Some
On 2024-05-08 at 15:53:47 UTC-0400 (Wed, 08 May 2024 16:53:47 -0300)
kurt.va1der.ca via users
is rumored to have said:
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as
follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4
Alex skrev den 2024-05-09 01:18:
What can be done to be able to process a quarantined email again so I
can make adjustments to prevent it from being quarantined?
is not an spamassassin issue, ask glue maillists
kurt.va1der.ca via users skrev den 2024-05-08 21:53:
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as
follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0
tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS=0.001,
Hi, I'm using the latest version of SA from trunk (although I don't think
that matters) and trying to make adjustments to rules on a particular
false-positive email that was quarantined by amavis so I can adjust the
rules to prevent it from being quarantined.
The problem is that amavis
On 09/05/2024 05:57, Jarland Donnell wrote:
That's easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate
their effort but it's simply not an accurate way to determine the value
of an email in 2024. It's never been the deciding factor between
whether or not an email was spam, in any
Obviously the right way is for the master rules to be adjusted. But if you want
a local fix, try something like this:
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -0.001
metaMY_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HIRCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI && !SPF_FAIL
score MY_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI-5
describeMY_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
That’s easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate their effort
but it’s simply not an accurate way to determine the value of an email in 2024.
It’s never been the deciding factor between whether or not an email was spam,
in any email I’ve audited in the last decade.
> On
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0
tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS=0.001,
HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 08:22:09PM +0200, tba...@txbweb.de wrote:
> when a send a test spam message to my server it recognizes it as spam and
> puts it into /var/lib/amavis/virusmails as a gz file. In this file I can
> find the complete X-Spam-Header, etc:
>
> But this header is missing in the
System (fresh installation): Debian 12,5, Postfix, Dovecot, Amavis
(Clamav, Spamassassin)
Hello,
when a send a test spam message to my server it recognizes it as spam
and puts it into /var/lib/amavis/virusmails as a gz file. In this file I
can find the complete X-Spam-Header, etc:
Hi Scott,
Your question is timely. When you posted that, I wasn't aware of
problems with t/spamd_client.t, but now I have enough examples that it
is the next failure case I'm tracking down. Can you email me directly
(don't have to do the detailed back and forth to the entire mailing
list)
Hi,
Any updates on this ?
Tnx, Tuc
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:24 PM Scott Ellentuch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, as ec2-user running the make and then make test ends up failing.
> There are no issues with the port as a previous tcpdump has shown, it
> transfers data back and forth. It gets through
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-04-24 19:37:
On 2024-04-24 at 12:27:01 UTC-0400 (Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:27:01 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
For example, it matches on
* 3.1 URI_IMG_CWINDOWSNET Non-MSFT image hosted by Microsoft Azure
infra, possible phishing
this is not in
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2024-04-24 18:58:
On 24.04.24 18:50, Benny Pedersen wrote:
unsure so i ask :)
try to explain your question a bit more
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AuthRes
EVAL FUNCTIONS
header RULENAME eval:check_authres_result(method, result)
Can be
On 2024-04-24 at 12:27:01 UTC-0400 (Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:27:01 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
>> For example, it matches on
>> * 3.1 URI_IMG_CWINDOWSNET Non-MSFT image hosted by Microsoft Azure
>> infra, possible phishing
>
> this is not in spamassassin core rules
Yes, it is:
Alex skrev den 2024-04-24 15:45:
I'm using SA 4.0.1 and amavisd with postfix. I've identified a few
bounce messages in the quarantine because they weren't identified
properly. Here's one:
https://pastebin.com/RMNkcyhF
1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
with no
On 24.04.24 18:50, Benny Pedersen wrote:
unsure so i ask :)
try to explain your question a bit more
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek
unsure so i ask :)
Alex skrev den 2024-04-24 15:45:
Hi,
I'm using SA 4.0.1 and amavisd with postfix. I've identified a few
bounce messages in the quarantine because they weren't identified
properly. Here's one:
https://pastebin.com/RMNkcyhF
Content preview: Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
Hi,
I'm using SA 4.0.1 and amavisd with postfix. I've identified a few bounce
messages in the quarantine because they weren't identified properly. Here's
one:
https://pastebin.com/RMNkcyhF
For example, it matches on
* 3.1 URI_IMG_CWINDOWSNET Non-MSFT image hosted by Microsoft Azure
infra,
I was wrong about the severity. It does look like the error aborts the
running of the DMARC plugin when it happens, so no DMARC result will be
scored for that email.
I've committed a fix to trunk.
This bug only happens in perl versions less than 5.20.0. I see that this
case was in CentOS 7
As a practical matter, the message appears to be a warning in the log,
but the results would be correct, so it can be ignored.
Sidney Markowitz wrote on 20/04/24 9:55 am:
I've open a bug in which I noted my suspicion of what is happening.
I've open a bug in which I noted my suspicion of what is happening.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8245
If you have a sanitized email that consistently causes this to happen,
please attach it to the bug report.
As I said in the bug report, I suspect that an email that
Hello,
after updating SA 4.0.0 to 4.0.1, (CentOS 7 - Perl version 5.16.3) I get
the following message in log regarding the DMARC plugin:
plugin: eval failed: Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/DMARC.pm line 336.
File "DMARC.pm":
my
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 20:23:
It was simscan, that is compiled with enable-drop.
with is fine
The problem was a bad expression in blacklist_from section in local.cf
[1]
this is spam, not virus
Sorry for the noise.
if you like to reject all / drop all, why not pants ?
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 19:52:
So could it be simscan ?
super you wake up :)
configure it to pass spam, and reject virus
simscan is very old, btw
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 19:44:
I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get spam
dropped with a 99.90 value, also if I have put, in local.cf [1] a
required hit of 100.
why is 100 required score ?
spamassassin does only tag, it does not drop
The mail is
It was simscan, that is compiled with enable-drop.
The problem was a bad expression in blacklist_from section in local.cf
Sorry for the noise.
Pierluigi
Il giorno gio 18 apr 2024 alle ore 19:56 Reindl Harald (privat) <
ha...@rhsoft.net> ha scritto:
>
>
> Am 18.04.24 um 19:52 schrieb Pierluigi
So could it be simscan ?
I'm using qmail with simscan for clamav and spamassasin.
Thanks !
Il giorno gio 18 apr 2024 alle ore 19:48 Reindl Harald (privat) <
ha...@rhsoft.net> ha scritto:
>
>
> Am 18.04.24 um 19:44 schrieb Pierluigi Frullani:
> > Hello all,
> > I'm really fighting with
Hello all,
I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get spam
dropped with a 99.90 value, also if I have put, in local.cf a required hit
of 100.
The mail is sent from a legit gmail account ( my daughter ) to me and
contains some amazon links for stuff to buy.
I have disabled
On 16/04/2024 08:24, Michael Grant via users wrote:
I am not at all advocating people use gmail. Something like 68% of the
planet already uses it and few people like
I really wonder about that, or did they pull a trump...
I ran this June last year, the results are somewhat surprising, of
https://isbg.gitlab.io/isbg/index.html
support gmail and spamassassin
other then that i tryed to make a gentoo ebuild for it, have to retry now :)
Yes that's kinda similar! I'll have to try that! Thanks.
Michael Grant via users skrev den 2024-04-15 12:55:
Do any of you use spamassassin with a gmail account, and if so, how
are people doing it? The reason to do this is gmail's spam filtering
isn't perfect and you don't have the control you have with
spamassassin.
...
Matija
Sorry, you have misunderstood what I posted. I am not at all advocating
people use gmail. Something like 68% of the planet already uses it and
few people like you and me have the skills to host our own email. It's
not crazy for the people who use gmail or yahoo or other providers,
> >Why not just forward messages? Register a domain put some mx servers in
> front of gmails mx. I recently was testing with such relay/forward, works
> perfectly, I am only changing the envelope nothing else. DKIM, spf
> everyting perfectly working.
> >
> I'd be interested to know if anyone runs
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 01:48:53PM +, Michael Grant via users wrote:
> > I don't like any daemon connecting to my mail storage. Can you imagine if
> > your solution gets hacked, how much data would be compromised? I prefer
> > messages being scanned/marked before stored. I wonder if this is
From "Marc"
You can add to this, that gmail actually is also losing email and annoying is
that you can't send zip files. I am constantly asking people to give me a
different email address.
Yup! And it's not too difficult to pull messages out of the Spam folder
and put them back into Inbox.
>
> Do any of you use spamassassin with a gmail account, and if so, how are
> people doing it? The reason to do this is gmail's spam filtering isn't
> perfect
You can add to this, that gmail actually is also losing email and annoying is
that you can't send zip files. I am constantly asking
Do any of you use spamassassin with a gmail account, and if so, how are
people doing it? The reason to do this is gmail's spam filtering isn't
perfect and you don't have the control you have with spamassassin.
We built some plumbing to do this using gmail's API, and also IMAP which
can work
I believe we are in solid agreement, a few notes below explaining how...
On 2024-04-14 at 08:00:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:00:19 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Bill Cole writes:
>
>> On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400)
>> Greg Troxel
>>
1 - 100 of 105300 matches
Mail list logo
