Matt,
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 02:50 PM 12/29/2003, Simon Matthews wrote:
> >Your comment made me look into the issue a little more and I see that a
> >mail server is listed as "trusted" when I don't think it should be. In the
> >email
Matt,
At 02:28 PM 12/29/03 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:17 PM 12/28/2003, Simon Matthews wrote:
Specifically, the RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK
check. Note that 192.168.10.250 is a local (within the LAN) relay.
If you're going to use 192.168.*.* networks, add them to your
trusted_networks statemen
02:28 PM 12/29/03 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:17 PM 12/28/2003, Simon Matthews wrote:
Specifically, the RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK
check. Note that 192.168.10.250 is a local (within the LAN) relay.
If you're going to use 192.168.*.* networks, add them to your
trusted_networks statement and it s
The email below originated from a dynamic IP address, but was sent via a
normal relay. However, the origin IP address triggered some RBL checks
that I don't think it should have. Specifically, the RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK
check. Note that 192.168.10.250 is a local (within the LAN) relay.
Also the email
The email below triggered a number of RBL checks, some of which don't make
sense. Can anyone explain?
Here is the SA report:
Content analysis details: (9.4 points, 7.0 required)
pts rule name descrip
CPAN does not seem to have 2.43 yet -- I just tried an install and it told
me everything was up to date. I have 2.42 installed.
What's up?
Simon
---
This sf.net emial is sponsored by: Influence the future
of Java(TM) technology. Join the J
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Mike Burger wrote:
> keeping in mind, also, that you didn't include the headers, so from what
> you presented us, there was no way for us to know from whence it came.
Hey, I just posted it because I thought it would be amusing.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Mike Burger wrote:
> It is possible that Mr. Bob is subscribed to one of the same lists as you.
>
Except that both of the SPAMs came from very similar IP addresses. I
really doubt that *both* people could make the same mistake and apparently
use the same servers in France.
This is the second such SPAM I have received, advertising an "Anti-SPAM
filter". Now, who in their right mind is going to use an "anti-spam
filter" that is advertised by spamming?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:44:39 +0200
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: undi
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Simon Matthews wrote:
>
> > That is essentially what spamcop does. It looks for a ratio of spam to
> > non-spam from an IP address and adds the IP address to the
> > bl.spamcop.net zone if the ratio exc
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jeremy Kister wrote:
>
> While coding, I had a thought... Would it be a good idea to Auto-White
> list/Auto-Black list Mail Servers themselves? While most of us don't have
> access to MAPS, it might be a good idea.
>
That is essentially what spamcop does. It looks for a rat
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Eric Mings wrote:
>
> The only mail I have ever received with this listbuilder tag _is_ spam.
> Not much of it but all spam.
>
Some legitimate mailing lists do use listbuilder -- however listbuilder
does not seem to have a double opt-in mechanism and hence it is open to
abu
At 01:43 PM 10/10/02 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>I'm curious as to whether or not there's an 'include' syntax which can
>be used on Spamassassin rulesets, particularly whitelist rules.
Spamassassin seems to read all files in /etc/mail/spamassassin (or whatever
your local equivalent is).
Simo
Can anyone tell me how I can list the contents of the auto-whitelist db in
some human-readable form?
Just curiosity!
Simon
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_
At 07:37 PM 10/3/02 +0200, Arie Slob wrote:
>Simon Matthews wrote:
>
>Nah... that's Dutch, not German
My apologies to German and Dutch speakers around the world!
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome
TED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: hey again!
ReSent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:32:42 -070
I use a 2-level approach. For a spam-score of 8, the spams are tagged. For
a spam-score of 17, the spams are dropped into a central mailbox, which is
rotated with logrotate.
This is from my procmailrc file:
:0fw
* < 15
| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P -D -a
# put a
At 09:50 AM 10/2/02 -0800, Rossz Vamos-Wentworth wrote:
>I've always considered filtering spam as the last resort. I prefer
>blocking at the mta if at all possible. Here's a useful resource:
>http://www.blackholes.us/
Interesting, but one of my company's mailservers is listed in the XO
bloc
IIRC, I had to do a 'force install' to get Net::DNS to install on my RH 6.2
systems.
Simon
At 11:46 AM 9/27/02 -0700, Tom at ATT wrote:
>Thanks for the response.
>
> > Are you having trouble getting any of the DNS blacklists to work, or just
> > the MAPS RBL?
>Nope, none are working. (MAPS i
The attached email did not get any hits from body checks in SA 2.31.
Anyone care to take a look at it?
Mutated_nigerian_2.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:43:29PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
> > However, I still think that spamd should be able to setuid to the
> > user by itself. According to the man page for spamd:
> > -u username, --username=username
> > R
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> On Monday 23 September 2002 21:24, Simon Matthews wrote:
> # Attached is a gzip version of Nigerian scam. Using SA 2.31, it only scored
> # 2.6.
> #
> Might be more helpful with the full headers an less your commentary
Is the attac
Attached is a gzip version of Nigerian scam. Using SA 2.31, it only scored
2.6.
Anyone care to look at it?
Simon
Nigerian_low_score.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
At 11:45 AM 9/20/02 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:10:47PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > OpenSRS 100% Recommended (2 reviews)
>
>I have a friend who's a reseller for them, so not surprisingly all of
>my domains are done through OpenSRS. No pro
I would like to suggest a change to the auto-whitelist function.
Currently, the AWL function can increase or decrease the score. However,
since SPAMMERS almost never use the same email address for different spam
runs, there is little to no value from increasing the spam score of an
email from
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, SpamTalk wrote:
> I would sack postfix before SA. Was any attempt made to query a postfix
> mailing list?
I can tell you that Postfix/Procmail/SA work very well together. I have
another procmail/perl filters already running (an email sanitizer --
looks for dangerous execu
26 matches
Mail list logo
