> The tests you performed were manually directed at the rbldns server.
> However, RBL queries are done using standard DNS lookups, and are
> therefore subject to the normal DNS recursive lookup algorithm.
>
> So if you didn't delegate the RBL base domain (rbl.mail...) to the
> rbldns server, your
> Just create a subdomain, say blacklist.your-domain, and delegate it to
> your rbldns server. That's what you'll have to do to use rbldns
> anyway.
"Local". That means not on the network. 127.0.0.1:53. As noted in my
previous email that is the IP in /etc/hosts for
rbl.mail.premiernet.net. Tha
You're right, I'm sure this is doable in some fashion. However there's
a limit to how much I want to fool with a server's setup. Note that I'm
using a VERY specialized RBL-only DNS daemon here (djbdns's rbldns) and
that it only provides RBL data. Frankly this becomes less interesting
the more co
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:30, Steve Thomas wrote:
> I'm not sure why you couldn't use "localhost" as the rbl server. In your
> previous example I saw "local" as the rbl server. Unless you've got "local"
> in your /etc/hosts file, it's not going to resolve. "localhost" *should* be
> in /etc/hosts, a
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:30, Steve Thomas wrote:
> | do_rbl_lookup) which contacts the $rbl_domain directly. This would
> | allow me to do such things as defining the $rbl_domain as an alias for
> | 127.0.0.1 in /etc/hosts and keeping the request completely local as
> | needed.
>
> I'm not sure w
ving to repatch
my installation each time Duncan releases a new deb would be a real pain
in the butt.
Ken Causey
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://t
th
reserved IPs before hitting the net at large. When check_rbl gets ahold
of it it trims off only the last 2 hosts which having reserved IPs don't
get checked at all since there is some logic to skip the check
altogether for reserved IPs.
SPAM: MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 (0.9 points) 'Message-Id' was added by a
relay (3)
SPAM:
SPAM: End of SpamAssassin results
-
It doesn't appear to be even trying RBL checks. I don't have it
disabled:
mail:~# grep skip_rbl_check /etc/spa
I failed to note in my original message that rbldns only listens for UDP
packets. Can SA handle rbl checks via UDP?
Ken
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
__
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 22:48, Michael Moncur wrote:
> > I don't know how they manage it but MS seems determined to do the
> > strangest things. A customer using MS Outlook 2002 sends himself a
> > message with no subject and only the words "Hi there" and it manages a
> > score of 5.084:
>
> As som
*sigh*
I don't know how they manage it but MS seems determined to do the
strangest things. A customer using MS Outlook 2002 sends himself a
message with no subject and only the words "Hi there" and it manages a
score of 5.084:
FROM_AND_TO_SAME_5 1.314
HTML_70_90
ISDN
> (219) 322-2180 Quality Service, Affordable Prices
> http://www.jorsm.com Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995
> ---------
>
> On 10 Oct 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
>
> > spamassassin is
I think it's something to do with razor. But it stalls for many many
minutes on connecting to this server and doesn't seem to be affected by
razor_timeout. Anybody have a clue? I've disabled RAZOR_CHECK
altogether for now. Time to check out pyzor I guess.
Ken
---
e a significant difference. It's stalling for many minutes
(I'm at 8 right now and still waiting) so I can't even get any logs to
see what's taking so long. Anyone have any ideas? This is killing my
server.
Ken Causey
---
PERCASE_25_50,USER_IN_WHITELIST
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
And the whitelist entry works. Can anyone figure out what's going on
here?
Thanks,
Ken Causey
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
Berch wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2002, at 07:20 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
> > In my daily missed spam harvesting I'm noticing this X-Mailer header:
> >
> > X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
> >
> > occassionally. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is a spam oriented
&g
In my daily missed spam harvesting I'm noticing this X-Mailer header:
X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
occassionally. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is a spam oriented
mailer? Until I hear otherwise I believe I'll stick in a rule for it.
Thanks,
Ken
__
Great! Thank you.
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 15:17, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:03:06PM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
> > body IMAS_SCRIPT/imas.?script/i
> >
> > What's up with that? HTML comments are not searched?
>
> Try using
I recently mentioned the occurrence of spams referring to something
called IMAS. In particular they are HTML emails and will include near
the beginning
OK. So I added the following the my local.cf:
body IMAS_SCRIPT/imas.?script/i
describe IMAS_SCRIPTTag indicating
Two questions in this one. First, would it be difficult to add a rule
for blank headers? For example
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Received: from mail.premiernet.net [205.229.224.233] by localhost with
POP3
(fetchmail-5.9.0) for ken@localhost (single-drop); Sun
I've been getting quite a few of these messages that seem to
consistently refer to offer888, and there's not much content here to
work with, so I added the following to my local.cf:
body OFFER888 /offer888/i
describe OFFER888 UCE from Offer888.net
score OFFER888 2.5
The
I'm getting a lot of similar messages slipping through SAs fingers
lately that are similar to this one and I would like to figure out
something to do about them sooner than later.
Primarily what I'm wondering is what is
IMAS Messaging Application Server
IMAS? I've not previously noticed messa
Yes, Ed Henderson was quickest on the draw in pointing out my flub up.
Thanks!
Ken
Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I think the problem is that you need a * before the @s
>
> C
>
> Ken Causey wrote:
>
> KC> At a user's request I recently whitelisted
> KC>
> KC&g
Thanks again Ed. I had to modify the script slightly to get it to work
with my procmail (procmail v3.22 2001/09/10):
# Test for nospamcheck
:0
* ? test -f $HOME/.nospamcheck
{
#if nospamcheck exists then deliver normally
:0:
$ORGMAIL
}
#Filter message thru SA
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc -u $LO
Thank you, this looks like a possible solution!
Ken
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 11:12, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> >
> >
> > You could add an entry to the main procmailrc that checks for the
> > existence
> > of a certain file called "nospamcheck" (or something like that). IF the
> > file e
I need some SA specific procmail help and I'm hoping someone on the list
has already run into this.
I've recently setup SA for a small ISP (about 1000+ mailboxes). 99%
percent of their customers are happy, there are a couple that are
offended that their email is being "modified".
Can I continue
I want to apologize to everyone for my fumble here. I will be more
careful in the future.
Ken
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 09:25, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
> > Not much to filter here, I reported it to razor as well as AOL.
>
&g
Not much to filter here, I reported it to razor as well as AOL.
--- Begin Message ---
Check out the most exclusive sex guide site on the net, for men and women! http://pleasurelover.subverter.net";>Click here!
--- End Message ---
#x27;m actually quite motivated to do
> the coding myself; I have a couple of other things I'm probably going to be
> working on, but might well have 130 done by month end.
>
> C
>
> Ken Causey wrote:
>
> KC> I've just recently setup SA for an ISP customer of mine
wrote:
> "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf" is your friend. Look for "report_header"
> option.
>
> ---
> Ed.
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken
> &
nd the MUA would render it correctly.
Ken Causey
___
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL
Heh! Thanks!
I'll have to give that one a bit of a thought to think if I want to
apply that. Sort of overrides my ability to setup a blacklist, which
I've yet to have any need of...
Ken
On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 17:18, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Ken Causey wrote:
>
> KC>
*sigh*
I could have sworn that I did indeed restart spamd. But just to be
sure, after getting this message I made sure that spamd stopped and
started from scratch. I had to wait for another error to come through,
but once it did, it was clear that the whitelist applied. Thanks for
the sanity c
ght that I would get some opinions
first before adding to bugzilla needlessly.
Ken Causey
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
OK, after reading through the source for one of the Received header
tests, I realize they aren't exactly infallible. Thanks.
Ken Causey
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:31, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
>
> > Is there any case in which a "valid"
e
higher scores? I do realize that I can change the scores, and I may do
that, but I thought I would check and see if there was some logic or bit
of information that I'm missing.
Ken Causey
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EM
1017793410/mail.premiernet.net"
X-UIDL: `0*!!lC?"!~`Z!!,al"!
and my /etc/spamassassin/local.cf includes:
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and yes, I restarted spamd.
Ken Causey
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PR
uation. I would like to point out that I have the
one stipulation that all messages are at least glanced at before
reporting so that false reports are less likely to slip through.
Thanks,
Ken Causey
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
s
ordb. If not currently, is this something that is planned? I currently
do this myself and have a program that I use to try to semi-automate
this. But it's a bear of a problem (that is assuming you don't feel
comfortable flooding the relay databases with likely false repor
39 matches
Mail list logo
