On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
> > >
Am 02.06.2016 um 17:32 schrieb John Hardin:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
of a
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
create and install a
Antony Stone wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 15:12:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> it's highly unlike in a proper setup that SA faces enough email to hit
>> the URIBL limit
>
> Once again, as you said yourself, "highly unlikely". That does not mean
> "impossible".
Indeed. We received notice
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 15:12:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.06.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> > On 02.06.16 14:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> that typically happens only when one is using a forwarding resolver
> >> get it finally
As you said yourself, "typically". That's
Am 02.06.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 02.06.16 14:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
that typically happens only when one is using a forwarding resolver
get it finally
you did not get it:
there are cases where it's not caused by forwarding DNS but by getting much
mail.
just for
On 02.06.16 12:35, Reindl Harald wrote:
the setup IS CRIPPELED in it's function as long URIBL/DNSBL/DNSWL are
not working - period
Am 02.06.2016 um 14:42 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
hitting the others' limits does not mean that the setup is crippled.
get it finally. period
On 02.06.16
Am 02.06.2016 um 14:42 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 02.06.16 12:35, Reindl Harald wrote:
the setup IS CRIPPELED in it's function as long URIBL/DNSBL/DNSWL are
not working - period
hitting the others' limits does not mean that the setup is crippled.
get it finally. period
that
On 02.06.16 12:35, Reindl Harald wrote:
the setup IS CRIPPELED in it's function as long URIBL/DNSBL/DNSWL are
not working - period
hitting the others' limits does not mean that the setup is crippled.
get it finally. period.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 13:22 +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing
> admins
> > > > of a [URIBL_BLOCKED]
>> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
>> > > of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
>>
>> create and install a logwatch service that scans /var/log/maillog
>> for lines containing "URIBL_BLOCKED" - this
Am 02.06.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
There's one obvious way of doing this for very little cost & effort:
use
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
> > > of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
>
> create and install a logwatch service that scans
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >
> > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
> of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
>
There's one obvious way of doing this for very little cost & effort:
use logwatch.
If you're a pukka sysadmin you'll
Am 02.06.2016 um 12:28 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
write 1000 times " YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml " in the rpeort header and
every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool can't
ignore
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
write 1000 times " YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml " in the rpeort header and
every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool can't
ignore it
Am 01.06.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR -
Am 02.06.2016 um 06:48 schrieb Peter Carlson:
In fact, now that I am confident the script is correct and that my email
chain is in fact processing as I would like, I have moved the script
into cron as user amavis. With amavis having read permissions to the
appropriate folders
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Peter Carlson wrote:
su -c... I'll keep in mind if I ever want to run the script manually.
Although if I run it manually as root is there really a risk? Are there any
known attacks?
If they were known, we'd fix them... :)
I guess there could be some form of buffer
In fact, now that I am confident the script is correct and that my email
chain is in fact processing as I would like, I have moved the script
into cron as user amavis. With amavis having read permissions to the
appropriate folders ($user/{SPAM|HAM}).
su -c... I'll keep in mind if I ever want
Am 02.06.2016 um 05:06 schrieb Peter Carlson:
ok, after over 50 hours of trying to get this work, I finally have a
solution.
The first (certainly not the only) response that was helpful to the
specific problem I posted was:
If that actually *did* get hits on BAYES_00 in this scenario then you
ok, after over 50 hours of trying to get this work, I finally have a
solution.
The first (certainly not the only) response that was helpful to the
specific problem I posted was:
If that actually *did* get hits on BAYES_00 in this scenario then you
likely are not training the bayes database
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:32 schrieb sha...@shanew.net:
Kind of a shot in the dark, but are you sure everyone is promptly
moving their spam out of the inboxes? I worry about automated
learning like this
autolearning has nothing to do with inboxes
On 2016-06-01 14:14, Joe Quinn wrote:
write 1000 times " YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml " in the rpeort
header and every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool
can't ignore it
Perhaps, score URIBL_BLOCKED -1000?
disconnect
if the user at this moment has looked at his inbox and
moved spam to the spamfolder, if he is at vacation you train als his not
caught spam as ham
congratulations building such a setup, comine it with autolearning and
then complain "Bayes filter marking everything as ham"
bayes trai
On Tue, 31 May 2016 14:58:05 -0700
Peter Carlson wrote:
> # grab all the user folders
> users=`find /var/spool/cyrus/mail -name SPAM -print`
...
> sa-learn --nosync --spam --progress --dir $inbox/SPAM
> sa-learn --nosync --ham --progress --dir $inbox
I've never used Cyrus, but my
Am 01.06.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
write 1000 times " YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml " in the rpeort header and
every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool can't
ignore
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
write 1000 times " YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml " in the rpeort header and
every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool can't ignore it
the setup doesn't have to be crippled to get
On 5/31/2016 8:32 PM, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
Kind of a shot in the dark, but are you sure everyone is promptly
moving their spam out of the inboxes? I worry about automated
learning like this. Even then, it seems unlikely that every mail
would get tagged by bayes as likely ham.
Someone just
Am 01.06.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Joe Quinn:
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:38 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes filter marking ever
On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:38 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes filter marking everything as ham
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb
On 31.05.16 14:58, Peter Carlson wrote:
(sorry if this is a repost, I dont see my messages coming through...the
irony of spamassassin.apache.org trapping my request for help as spam. I
have snipped the logfile entries which I think were causing it to be
tagged as spam)
please, avoid
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:32 schrieb sha...@shanew.net:
Kind of a shot in the dark, but are you sure everyone is promptly
moving their spam out of the inboxes? I worry about automated
learning like this
autolearning has nothing to do with inboxes
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:38 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes filter marking everything as ham
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
May 30 09:04:53 www
Am 01.06.2016 um 02:04 schrieb Peter Carlson:
On 05/31/2016 04:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
May 30 09:04:53 www amavis[16577]: (16577-03) Passed CLEAN
{RelayedInbound}, Tests:
>https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ImproveAccuracy
>I have gone through this wiki (and ones like it) at least a dozen times.
>My server is blocking about 50% of the spam, thanks to some of the
>other layers of spam protection. It's just bayes that I can't seem to get
>right
Are you getting
On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 00:38 +, David Jones wrote:
>
> Too bad we couldn't make SA do something very annoying and
> more obvious when the URIBL_BLOCKED rule was hit.
>
I notice, rather to my surprise, that the SA Wiki doesn't seem to have
an entry for the URIBL_BLOCKED rule. However, since
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 17:04 -0700, Peter Carlson wrote:
>
> URIBL_BLOCKED == read some basics
> your reply == useless. You have no idea what I may or may not have
> read. You are under no obligation to provide any help to me or
> anyone
> else. I suggest that if for whatever reason you find
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Peter Carlson wrote:
I will investigate this (URIBL_BLOCKED) further tomorrow
(https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver),
Note: caching != recursing. You can have a caching forwarding local
nameserver, which won't fix URIBL_BLOCKED.
however I doubt that
not everyone is an email
expert that understands how RBLs work and that it's bad
to share a recursive DNS server on an SA server.
I will investigate this (URIBL_BLOCKED) further tomorrow
(https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver), however I
doubt
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Peter Carlson wrote:
On 05/31/2016 04:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
> May 30 09:04:53 www amavis[16577]: (16577-03) Passed CLEAN
> {RelayedInbound}, Tests:
>
>From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:27 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Bayes filter marking everything as ham
>Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
>> May 30 09:04:53 www amavis[1657
Kind of a shot in the dark, but are you sure everyone is promptly
moving their spam out of the inboxes? I worry about automated
learning like this. Even then, it seems unlikely that every mail
would get tagged by bayes as likely ham.
Someone just today suggested in another thread to add the
On 05/31/2016 04:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
May 30 09:04:53 www amavis[16577]: (16577-03) Passed CLEAN
{RelayedInbound}, Tests:
[BAYES_00=-1.9,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,SPF_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001],
autolearn=ham
Am 31.05.2016 um 23:58 schrieb Peter Carlson:
May 30 09:04:53 www amavis[16577]: (16577-03) Passed CLEAN
{RelayedInbound}, Tests:
[BAYES_00=-1.9,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,SPF_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001],
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no, autolearnscore=-0.001, 3992 ms
(sorry if this is a
repost, I dont see my messages coming through...the irony of
spamassassin.apache.org trapping my request for help as spam. I
have snipped the logfile entries which I think were causing it to
be tagged as spam)
All of my messages
45 matches
Mail list logo
