Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 22:12 +0200, mouss wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
Bug 6119 has been opened already. Please attach additional samples
there, rather than opening a new bug for every sample. Thanks!
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin
Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:21 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Mittwoch 27 Mai 2009 mouss wrote:
and 4454 is a one line message, but the signature causes the hit.
The fact that mailing-list footer is forced onto the message with no
newline causes
Charles Gregory a écrit :
Hello!
Quick question: Does Spamassassin's RCVD tests also check headers
labelled X-Originating-IP?
yes.
In particular, I received the below message from hotmail with hits on
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB. Neither of the
hotmail IP's is found in
:)
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net said:
Quick question: Does Spamassassin's RCVD tests also check headers
labelled X-Originating-IP?
yes.
(nod) Certainly makes sense of the unexpected scores. But I am wondering
if I have made some wrong presumptions about the behaviour of tests for
dynamic IP's
Neil Schwartzman a écrit :
On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by
Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime sa-update -D will add it but
have yet to see it.
I would like to add some perspective
Garik a écrit :
I have a situation where by mail passes through a mailing list and then
goes on to the destination mailbox that's subscribed in the mailing
list. Here's my problem:
SpamAssasin checks the emails going through the mailing list for SPAM
and adds the subject [**SPAM**] to the
ANTICOM-STINGER a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:16 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
Rob McEwen wrote:
Additionally, I'd like to ask, other than being a superb cash-generating
machine, what good is a whitelist built upon pay-to-enter and NOT based
on editorial decisions made by non-biased e-mail
fchan a écrit :
I recently was checking on servers that were sending out spam and found
one of them had the hostname called localhost which I think is a
attempt to bypass SA. The IP address is 222.252.188.181 which maps back
to Vietnam.
SA will not use localhost unless your MTA is borked.
Adam Katz a écrit :
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
181.188.252.222.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer localhost.
That is why FcRDNS is being used everywhere...
localhost has address 127.0.0.1 = fail.
Actually, localhost doesn't resolve via DNS;
I don't know where you're taking this from:
$
Adam Katz a écrit :
John Hardin wrote:
So that data comes from /etc/hosts. How does that materially affect the
FCrDNS sanity test?
By definition, FCrDNS uses DNS lookups. Unless you're using dnsmasq,
the entries in /etc/hosts are ignored during DNS lookups.
This is wrong.
FCrDNS lookup
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 05.06.09 23:55, mouss wrote:
localhost.netoyen.net has address 127.0.0.1
oh, I didn't even realize it was the .$domain one!
old habit to avoid nslookup barking and then lusers asking what's the
problem...
Actually, I think this is not good. localhost
David Gibbs a écrit :
LuKreme wrote:
The unsubscribe link is right there in plain sight. Whether Gmail
conceals it from you has nothing to do with it.
Few consumer mail clients (Gmail, Yahoo, Thunderbird, OE, Outlook,
Lotus/Domino, etc) show the user headers by default. This means they
David Gibbs a écrit :
mouss wrote:
- this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets back
to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain), this may
cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures so the
receiving site should cope with this, but I am
Yet Another Ninja a écrit :
On 6/14/2009 10:48 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
http://log.perl.org/2009/06/email-issues-org-blocked-now-fixed.html
anyone know what URIBL provider this was?
--j.
Wouldn't we all have noticed if this would have been the case?
not if they use some unknown uri
a...@ibcsolutions.de a écrit :
Excerpts from Charles Gregory's message of Thu Jun 11 07:13:02 -0700 2009:
How many accounts are we talking about here?
If it is just one or two addresses, and the user(s) being 'spoofed' have
distinctive *names* on their genuine 'From' headers, then you can
Bill Landry a écrit :
Res wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
people involved in OSSP's to drop everything
David Gibbs a écrit :
Bill Landry wrote:
This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
signed the message.
As I understand
RW a écrit :
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
I am not as convinced as you:
- this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
this may cause problems. I agree
Bill Landry a écrit :
Bill Landry a écrit :
Res wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
people involved in
Bowie Bailey a écrit :
I couldn't find any place on junkmailfilter website to report this, so
I'll put it here.
I received a 419 scam email with this whitelist hit:
so what? I keep getting 419 from google, yahoo, ... but they are still
whitelisted.
and anyway, fighting 419 is not easy.
Michael Scheidell a écrit :
spam, with a url link in it that opens up a yahoo.com web mail page and
asks for yahoo.com credentials.
don't know how that can help spammer, unless spammer is looking to only
get email from yahoo.com users.
see line 119 (highighted)
John Hardin a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 09:24 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 16:21 +0200, Paweł Tęcza wrote:
body AE_MEDS35 /w{2,4}\s{0,4}meds\d{1,4}\s{0,4}(?:net|com|org)/
I've just noticed missing 'i' switch for your rule regexp. Is it a bug
or a feature? :)
That
Charles Gregory a écrit :
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Really? Personally I find the PBL just kicks its ass.
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had
Gary Smith a écrit :
If you follow the unlisting proceedure and meet all of the requirements, then
you get unlisted. As with all things, it just takes a little patients.
After converting my IP's over from my ISP to my DNS servers, I was listed
(because the ISP no longer listed us a
Res a écrit :
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for dul
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a
detterent i think sunno we never paid
This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if not, stop spreading
rumours. I have
Charles Gregory a écrit :
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
Got more info?
Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
While I cannot remember precisely,
James Wilkinson a écrit :
mouss wrote (about the PBL):
stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so that we
see what you exactly mean.
a lot of people, including $self, use the PBL at smtp time.
As usual, it depends on your definition of “false positive”.
fully agreed
Cory Hawkless a écrit :
Hi all,
Been doing some reading on RegEx and even coming from a programming
background it is a bit intimidating, my problem is I haven’t been able
to find a good source of information on exactly what\how SpamAssassin
matches the RegEx rules when scanning and
MrGibbage a écrit :
I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and I guess
I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should put for those
two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking at the headers from
an email? I can tell you that my SA
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
MrGibbage a écrit :
#ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
internal_networks 75.119.219.171
trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
Every entry in internal_networks must appear in
trusted_net-
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98
trusted_networks 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
[snip]
when I put your lines in my config, I only seethe
127.0.0.1/32 warning.
It looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
I removed both the 127.0.0.1 AND 10/8 and this is happy again. It seems to
configure the internal networks as trusted
Evan Platt a écrit :
At 11:22 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
I have a postfix/SA setup and I was wondering if anyone knew how to
COPY an email marked as spam instead of redirecting.
Not this:
/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REDIRECT spam...@example.com
if you use amavisd-new, configure it to add a +spam
Martin Gregorie a écrit :
put any custom rules in the database, and modify the spamd? start
scripts to write the custom rules to flat files. modify your update
program to signal a spamd reload every time you modify the rules, or,
use unison. we use unison (not for our VPS spam clusters) but
Pietro a écrit :
In my installation, SA is called by Postfix. Any idea? Thanks in advance.
This is really a postfix question. Follow up on the postfix-users list
if needed.
you can skip filtering using header_checks. for example
/^X-Spam-Status: Yes/ FILTER smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
assuming
Mike Cardwell a écrit :
Just checking through my Spam folder and I came across a message that
contained this in the html:
a target=_blank
href=http://www.kanotiser.se/images/logo.html;https://www.paypal.co/us/webscr.php?cmd=_login-runcmd=_secure
/a
Yet, there was no mention of this
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
snip
did you see this:
This is really a postfix question. Follow up on the
postfix-users list if needed.
did you see that?
[snip]
Got the following error, when tried that. I'm using stock postfix on Debian
Lenny w/ backports.
postfix/cleanup[1602]:
Paweł Tęcza a écrit :
Hello Folks,
Did you also get many spams from United-MAP, a dynamic company with
rapid development, with a united team of professionals in its core.? :)
Or maybe this new spam flood is only Poland targeted?
or maybe we don't see them because they come from clients
Steven W. Orr a écrit :
On 07/26/09 20:01, quoth RW:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:07:12 -0400
Michael W. Cocke cocke.mich...@gmail.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a web interface to subscribe/unscribe from
this list. The email address
users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org complains
snowweb a écrit :
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a bit hacked of with this
1980's style forum. I'm trying to get to the bottom of an SA issue and this
list/forum thing is giving me a bigger headache than SA!
Spamassassin has more than one or two users now and I personally
Mike Cardwell a écrit :
Henrik K wrote:
Good for you. I've signed up for many mailing lists AND forums. There is
nothing inherently better or worse in either of them,
No that's wrong, they're quite different and both have advantages and
disadvantages.
so, it's YES, not NO. Henrik said
twofers a écrit :
So what makes a spammer want to use a valid email address as a return or
reply-to address to catch all the undeliverable, failure and bounced
email that occures when sending UBE spam.
this is to beat those who use sender verification/sender
callout/(whatever you name it).
Terry Carmen a écrit :
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:33:40 -0400
Terry Carmen te...@cnysupport.com wrote:
The backscatter would not have been received, since the sender is on
a number of RBLs.
It's the IP address of the botnet PC that's on the RBLs, the backscatter
doesn't come from there, it comes
Chris a écrit :
I keep seeing this when running some messages throught spamassassin -D
-t. Is this having an effect on whether or not short circuit works?
received-header: unparseable: from spam01.embarq.synacor.com (LHLO
smtpout01.embarq.synacor.com) (10.50.1.1) by md29.embarq.synacor.com
LuKreme a écrit :
On 16-Aug-2009, at 18:03, Chris wrote:
Received: from spam05.embarq.synacor.com (LHLO
smtpout01.embarq.synacor.com) (10.50.1.5) by md29.embarq.synacor.com
with LMTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
LMTP? Seriously? Does anyone use that? Well, yes, evidently.
of
Bob Proulx a écrit :
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [96.254.126.11]
by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if
Marc Perkel a écrit :
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably good to me. I
don't really count apews
pattern to me.
On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
dynamic, I suggest: UMO for Unidentifiable Mailing Object. whether
static-ip- is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
such hosts, and we can't report/complain
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
dynamic, I suggest: UMO for Unidentifiable Mailing Object. whether
static-ip- is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
such hosts, and we can't
Dan Schaefer a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
Any ideas about this one, besides adding a score to match the subject?
Probably not a smart idea, since you insist on re-using that very
subject for your list post...
That
Gary Smith a écrit :
Read the top of the rulesemporium site:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/
SARE rules aren't being updated. Hence, sa-updating them is pointless.
Is it still recommended to run the SARE rules?
you should use
90_2tld_cf_sare_sa-update_dostech_net
to avoid querying
Clunk Werclick a écrit :
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 01:36 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
I'm starting to see plenty of these and they are new to us:
zgrep address not listed /var/log/mail.info
Sep 3 05:26:59 : warning: 222.252.239.56: address not
LuKreme a écrit :
On 3-Sep-2009, at 15:33, mouss wrote:
check_helo_hostname_access hash:/etc/postfix/access_host
If but this in my smtpd_helo_restrictions (with a warn_if_reject for
right now), but where in the smtpd_recipient_restrictions do you
recommend putting
Justin Mason a écrit :
In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more
recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help
out. Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of
hand-holding. We don't have the same kind of marketing budget as
Warren Togami wrote:
I scanned my spam folders and found a few false positives that hit on
either DNSWL
FP with DNSWL?
FP = False Positive = legitimaite mail tagged as spam
DNSWL = Whitelist
if your system adds points because of dnswl, you have a serious problem. ..
or do you mean FN
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 23:35 +0200, mouss wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
I scanned my spam folders and found a few false positives that hit on
either DNSWL
FP with DNSWL?
FP = False Positive = legitimaite mail tagged as spam
DNSWL = Whitelist
False positive
RW wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:35:31 +0200
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
I scanned my spam folders and found a few false positives that hit
on either DNSWL
FP with DNSWL?
FP = False Positive = legitimaite mail tagged as spam
DNSWL = Whitelist
The term
RW wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:14:52 +0200
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
RW wrote:
The term false-positive can apply to any test. A test for ham
that matches a spam is a false-positive, it's a matter of context.
spam too can be (re)defined. and actually any term. but it is assumed
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:08 +0200, mouss wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
False positive. Something, that matches (positive) the criterion for a
certain test, but should not (false).
I stand to what I said.
I'm not surprised:)
you can certainly devise
RW a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:53:34 +0200
Yet Another Ninja sa-l...@alexb.ch wrote:
why lastexternal ?
would you expect ham traffic from those IPs? and want to loose deeper
header parsing?
Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for
SpamAssassin. With zen
Thomas Mullins a écrit :
We have been running Spamassassin for maybe eight years now. But, my
coworkers do not like OpenSource. So they have finally complained
enough that my boss is going to replace our reliable
FreeBSD/Spamassassin boxes. They are planning on purchasing something
that
Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 11:50 PM +0200 mouss
mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Thomas Mullins a écrit :
We have been running Spamassassin for maybe eight years now. But, my
coworkers do not like OpenSource. So they have finally complained
enough that my boss
Steve Prior a écrit :
I started getting spam that was distinctive for having two boxes - one
Email Security Information and one Privacy Policy and viewing source
indicated the mails came from a server at noave.net 74.63.109.*.
I blocked 74.63.109.* and the spam stopped for a while, but I
Warren Togami a écrit :
I am trying to reconfigure my postfix server to get rid of false
positives in the masschecks.
* I run my own postfix server at example.com.
* Several of my users have IMAP accounts on my server. They send their
outgoing mail via my server with SMTP-after-IMAP. This
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit :
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to
jdow a écrit :
[snip]
Per a discussion off the list the $20 is, as mentioned, pretty much a
captcha and as the web site declares, an inoculation against domain
tasting or 10 for a dollar .cn domains. The thousands of names
registration isn't going to get through either ReturnPath or
Bill Landry a écrit :
Christian Brel, AKA rich...@buzzhost.co.uk (among other aliases), is
back...
Bill
he switched MUA, but forgot to switch helo and get a different IP range...
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
jdow a écrit :
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7780
It can be quite frustrating to run an ISP and comply with the often
arbitrary, strange, and I suspect contradictory demands of the likes
of SORBS and Trend Micro. An ISP Abuse handler vents in this article.
from the text, there is
jdow a écrit :
At least one well respected ninja sort from this list is also a
volunteer SANS Internet Storm Cellar operator. These folks do not seem
to be in the least inexperienced in the ways of malware and malware
delivery. That is why I take that diary entry at face value.
maybe I'm
clem...@dwf.com a écrit :
How do I tell if sa-update is actually running?
I mean, yes, I can run it by hand and get no error messages, and with -D
I dont see any problems, still I feel that my stuff isnt current, and that
there
should be an update.
Should I be getting a message in
R P Herrold a écrit :
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, mouss wrote:
you can query DNS to get the version of the rules. for example:
$ host -t txt *.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org
*.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 895075
(2.3 is the reverse of 3.2, which corresponds to the SA version you
Callum Millard a écrit :
I'm sure there's a straight forward way of doing this, but after several of
hours searching, I can't find it.
The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending e-mails
to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail address from our
jdow a écrit :
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, 2010/January/13 07:40
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:17:31 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:39:34 -0500
Jason Bertoch ja...@i6ix.com wrote:
Can a
David B Funk a écrit :
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Can a list admin disable the spamassas...@hundredacrewood.willspc.net
account as we're still getting bounces?
Original Message
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010
Jason Bertoch a écrit :
On 1/18/2010 6:38 PM, mouss wrote:
David B Funk a écrit :
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Can a list admin disable the spamassas...@hundredacrewood.willspc.net
account as we're still getting bounces?
Original Message
Subject: Delivery
dar...@chaosreigns.com a écrit :
On 02/13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
So the only effect of MTX should be confirmation that a machine may send
mail?
Yes.
So why the complicated check for DNS record combining DNS name and IP?
Why not simply requesting that machine has a mail or smtp
Brian S. Meehan wrote:
Hi,
There's the option rewrite_header Subject in the local.cf file, however,
I've been observing when looking through the spam folder that sorting by
subject is more helpful when looking for incorrectly caught emails since
many emails often have the same subject and
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Sometimes a large company will have a proxy server set up in the DMZ and
then send it to their internal mail server.
I understand that ideally, the proxy server would be replaces with a
SpamAssassin/MTA setup.
However, sometimes, client, security and company policy
James Lay wrote:
On 9/23/07 8:53 AM, mel goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I¹m new to the list, apologize in advance if I should be posting this
somewhere else.
I am attempting to SPAM filter and forward from my server to another.
Spamassassin filters but the server will not forward.
mizzio wrote:
hello everybody,
I apologize to ask an off-topic question, and feel free to point me to
any other resources on the net.
I'm setting up an SMTP server (centos + qmail) on a dell quad core
machine for sending out a periodic newsletter (10 millions a month).
In order to avoid
Kris Deugau wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Randal, Phil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you don't want to annoy a lot of people your spamming (oops,
newsletter sending) software needs to deal with NDRs back from
recipient's domains and either put their subscription on hold after a
small number of
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David B Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:07 AM
To: Michael Scheidell
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org; Amavis-Users
Subject: RE: Q about mail proxy servers and setups
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Michael
Michael Scheidell wrote:
One thing I would like to see (and this is a different subject:
Marc: take note: Id like to NOT BOUNCE an email back to the victim of
backscatter if they bothered to publish SPF or SENDER ID records that
don't match the incoming.
It's the other way around. you
Dietmar Braun wrote:
DJM http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_bcc
Hm, I tried that, but it doesn't work, because it the configuration
should be dependent of the recipient domain...
[please ask on the postfix users list, instead of here]
then you should say what exactly you want
tuxbeagle wrote:
Thanks,
Knowing what to search for helps.
The first document I started reading has an installation where spam is
filtered to a specific user 'spammy'. I hope that there is a way to just
tag the spam in the header and let the user filter locally.
visit the postfix and
John D. Hardin wrote:
Has somebody subscribed paypal customer support to the SA list? This
highly amusing form letter just dropped into my mailbox... (Yes, it
*was* received from a paypal MTA.)
either that, or somebody is forwarding mail to them.
yet another broken auto-responder: it
Dietmar Braun wrote:
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 12:12:13 PM, you wrote:
m then you should say what exactly you want to achieve. we could spend a month
at guess games.
I think I said all you have to know - the one missing was just the
domain dependent thing.
Additionally, this rejects
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
(The idea below is not mine, someone else (I'm sorry, but I forgot
who) wrote about it here (I think) before.)
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
brand-new domains,
Something that could work for this without the problems inherent in
using whois or registry databases is to
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:30 PM
Well, it may be, but I believe it is not more than a week I'm getting
these
log entries.
This is right, these error only
Chris Edwards wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
| Both Crackberry and Verizon force you to use their mail servers. Some other
| data providers are now doing transparent proxy on outbound e-mail. In
short,
| the user can't always control that.
True, to an extent. I don't know
R.Smits wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Quoting Richard Smits [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks for all the advice.. I think we will be using spamhaus. I am
running a test and it blocks a lot of spam. Currently I use the
sbl.spamhaus and pbl.spamhaus
Is this wise, or should I also use the xbl and
Leon Kolchinsky wrote:
Hello,
Which spam blacklists do you use in your MTA config. (postfix)
smptd_client_restrictions
Currently we only use : reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org
We let spamassassin fight the rest of the spam. But the load of spam is
getting to high for our organisation. Wich
David B Funk wrote:
Jo you didn't read Chris's statement closely. A conscientious mail server
administrator will configure the SERVER to -ONLY- accept encrypted
connections for SMTP-AUTH transactions; the server should enforce
the encryption requirements.
This is a religious war
Mark Martinec wrote:
This is not a default behaviour, normally such errors in header are only
flagged/logged as a warning, but a message is delivered nevertheless.
There is no particularly good reason to block such messages,
but you can if you want to.
In countries like here, that would
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thursday 11 October 2007, Mark wrote:
I'm new to the list, so I hope this is the right place.
I am running my mail through procmail and separating my spamassassin
into 3 groups depending on score:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[2-9][0-9]
Jose Mario Pires wrote:
Hi,
Please excuse me if this isn't the appropriate place to report this
issue and asking for help.
I have installed the last available version of Qmailtoaster and things
apparently are all OK. It has some hundred email accounts and
processes thousands of emails
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I cannot help but comment on this post.
Neither can I.
I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
(along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
you experts out there because I do not fully
YMGT wrote:
Hi Guys,
I am sending two emails from the same system. One of these emails is giving
me extra spam penalty scores for failed reverse DNS tests. The header of
that email is:
I have no idea what these REVDNS_* rules come from. can you grep your
config files to find them?
Micah Anderson wrote:
* Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071019 14:59]:
Justin Kim wrote:
I don't know what is causing my postfix server to defer messages couple of
times daily.
By looking at the logs, I can only tell there is something that keeps one
spam checking
Micah Anderson wrote:
* mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 09:38]:
Micah Anderson wrote:
Do you think running a bayes expire via cronjob is necessary if you are
running a INNOdb based bayes DB (with this patch[1])?
Also, if you postpone the bayes expire to instead run it via cron
1 - 100 of 1228 matches
Mail list logo
