Re: [SAtalk] Domain DNS Blacklists

On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 15:36, Matt Kettler wrote: > >header RCVD_SECSAGE_RBL eval:check_rbl('SECSAGE', > >'blackhole.securitysage.com.') > Check out how check_rbl_from_host works in the RFCI_DSN rule (quoted in my > other post to this thread). Perfect, thanks all. -- The Flying Hamster <[EMAIL

[SAtalk] Domain DNS Blacklists

Afternoon all, I've had a dig through the archives and wiki for a definitive answer with no success. Is it currently possible to use DNS based domain blacklists at the moment in SA? (such as http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_rhsbl.html) thanks Mark -- Mark Lowes &l

[SAtalk] How "-m " works

in handling in spamc to do it's work to spread the load across multiple spamd servers. -- Mark Lowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download

[SAtalk] Virtual users + SQL

I'm having some problems with getting SQL configs to work with virtual users. My setup is such that we're primarily spam scanning at a domain not a user level thus the usernames are the domainname of the recipient. We've been running a locally patched version until recently (though I see the --vi

Re: [SAtalk] "Naughty" test names

ach would be to patch locally to cater for the local sensibilities? (hell you could even make the patch available back to the community ;) Mark (running a couple of minor local patches on the work version) -- Mark Lowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[SAtalk] Odd balancing problem with spam[c|d]

Evening all, Got an odd one here, I'm trying to setup some resiliancy + load balancing on my spamd servers. So to that end I've been trying out "balance" and "pen" both of which are tcp load balancing proxies. Thus port 783 locally is the proxy and it shares out the connections to the configur

Re: [SAtalk] Sick of spam? Sure am!

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 17:14, Benjamin A. Shelton wrote: > This is one thing I'll never understand. Why advertise anti-spam software > by spamming? I mean, if it really did work, you wouldn't be able to > advertise anymore! To quote a UK based company which was advertising via a 'millions cd' it

[SAtalk] User config checking

Random pondering, just how robust is the checking of the files in $HOME/.spamassassin/, ie how does SA deal with problem lines (ignore them or flag an error?) Mark -- The Flying Hamster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.korenwolf.net/ Of chess it has been said that life is not long enough

Re: [SAtalk] SA config based on recipient domain (spamd/spamc)

Been spending some time on this problem over the last few days. On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 20:21, Craig R Hughes wrote: > Well, SA "users" don't have to be users Technically you are correct however spamd does uid lookups and complains lots if the lookup fails. > I'd suggest using spamd/spamc, wi

Re: [SAtalk] SA config based on recipient domain (spamd/spamc)

On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 14:30, Rick Macdougall wrote: >> From: "Mark Lowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I'm trying to get SA working here and want to try and get configuration >> on a per domain rather than a per-user basis. Has anyone else had >> experience

[SAtalk] SA config based on recipient domain (spamd/spamc)

Morning, I'm trying to get SA working here and want to try and get configuration on a per domain rather than a per-user basis. Has anyone else had experience in achieving this or am I striking out on my own here? thanks Mark -- The Flying Hamster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.