his
>problem affects all courier users. Unless I'm missing something?
>
>Thanks!
>
>m/
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:55 AM
>To: 'Mitch (WebCob)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:
essage-
From: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:55 AM
To: 'Mitch (WebCob)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61 when
sending myself a test message?
Hi, Mitch.
Could you please provide more information reg
n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:55 AM
To: 'Mitch (WebCob)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61 when
sending myself a test message?
Hi, Mitch.
Could you please provide more information regarding the mail server which
(WebCob); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61 when
sending myself a test message?
>
> Can someone explain the logic here... SA for dummies ;-)
>
> I send myself a message... now of course my home computer (by
> ADSL) is in SORBS - makes sense..
rom: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:55 AM
To: 'Mitch (WebCob)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61 when
sending myself a test message?
Hi, Mitch.
Could you please provide more information regar
> -Original Message-
> From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: Brian Sneddon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61
> when sending myself a test message?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS in 2.61
> when sending myself a test message?
>
>
> >
>
>
> its all in how you configure it... see
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf | grep num_
>num_check_received { integer } (default: 9)
>
> dallas
Which is followed by:
This option is deprecated in version 2.60 and later. It will be
removed in a future version.
>
> Can someone explain the logic here... SA for dummies ;-)
>
> I send myself a message... now of course my home computer (by
> ADSL) is in SORBS - makes sense... BUT, I am sending TO my
> authenticating ESMTP server which is NOT in sorbs - which
> receives, and relays my message - but I stil
Hi, Mitch.
Could you please provide more information regarding the mail server which is
running SpamAssassin? Information such as which MTA it's using, how you're
calling SpamAssassin (procmail, milter, etc.), and whether the machine is on
a private NATed address will be helpful in troubleshooting
Brian Sneddon wrote:
>... It only seems to occur when the email
> is being processed through spamass-milter and spamd; processing it
> manually using spamassassin works properly.
There was a similar issue with some SA processing through the MIMEDefang
milter; the fix was for MIMEDefang's author
et the text with \r\n line endings.
- --j.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:36 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
>
>I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on
ECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:27 PM
To: Brian Sneddon
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Sneddon writes:
>After doing some more testing I can only duplicate the problem with
-milter and niether one results in success.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:21 PM
To: Brian Sneddon
Cc: 'Matt Kettler'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Kelly writes:
>I'm still confused after following this thread and reading the manuals.
>
>I also get some of these FPs. Should my local.cf have these entries:
>
>trusted_networks192.168.200/24 <-- internal
>trusted_networks81.6.xxx.xx
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:18 PM
>To: Brian Sneddon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
>
>At 11:35 AM 11/3/2003, Brian Sneddon wrote:
>>I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on a public IP (not NATed) and none of
&g
hi all
I'm still confused after following this thread and reading the manuals.
I also get some of these FPs. Should my local.cf have these entries:
trusted_networks192.168.200/24 <-- internal
trusted_networks81.6.xxx.xxx/29 <-- my public IPs
or have I thoroughly misunderstood this?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
web4.hm - Peter Padberg writes:
>I love OPENSOURCE,
>but who is able to FIX this MAJOR bugs now???
>Any developer outthere?
>Both bugs are known over 4weeks!
>It was better if we talk about fixes after 4 weeks!
We have limited bandwidth.
There are o
output when the email was processed by spamd with
debugging turned on.
-Original Message-
From: Brian Sneddon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on a p
At 11:35 AM 11/3/2003, Brian Sneddon wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on a public IP (not NATed) and none of the
-notfirsthop rules (including RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK) have worked correctly for
me, either. For reference I'm also running Sendmail and Spamass-milter
0.2.0. Here are the headers from a
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:18 PM
To: Brian Sneddon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK FP?
At 11:35 AM 11/3/2003, Brian Sneddon wrote:
>I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on a public IP (not NATed)
Hi folks!
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2537
AND THIS TOO:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2543
I love OPENSOURCE,
but who is able to FIX this MAJOR bugs now???
Any developer outthere?
Both bugs are known over 4weeks!
It was better if we talk about fixes af
Assassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
mail-gateway.metrologic.com
When querying Dynablock:
katie> host 226.121.217.207.dynablock.easynet.nl
Host not found.
Any thoughts?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 20
At 02:57 AM 11/3/2003, Justin Mason wrote:
Pedro Sam writes:
>I'm just wondering why RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK was a hit, when I sent a email
from
>my localhost 192.168.2.125 with kmail using the SMTP server at
>mail.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca to address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>This is the proper way of sending
Justin Mason wrote:
Should be -- I would guess it may be that SpamAssassin can't parse the
"good" received line, so misses it.
I have moved DynaBlock to the SMTP level and I have yet to see any
trouble. Although I cannot tell you why, it seems to be most effective
on our off-site backup mail ser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pedro Sam writes:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm just wondering why RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK was a hit, when I sent a email from
>my localhost 192.168.2.125 with kmail using the SMTP server at
>mail.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca to address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>This is the prop
Hi, Russell.
If you check the rule itself in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf you'll notice the
-notfirsthop part of the argument to check_rbl_txt(). This tells
SpamAssassin to check all hops except the first one for this match. As a
result it shouldn't match people sending email through their ISP's mail
server
Ryan,
My daughters machine is NOT sending mail directly to me, she uses the
mail services provided by an ASP opposed to an ISP. The Received from
headers do include an ip address that is in the RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK list.
However the SMTP server is not in a RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK list. Therefore
it
> "TM" == Terry Milnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TM> Ryan,
TM> Ok here are the two headers again, both messages originated from the
TM> same computer, smtp server in outlook express is set up to use
TM> aloak.ca (which is not in a dialup block).
TM> The only difference besides content is th
I guess I'm either confused or a little too tired, but I'm not seeing a
problem with what is happening. The IP 65.48.80.27 is listed in the
dynablock list, so when the receiving system parses through the
headers it checks that IP in the various RBLs and gets a match on that one.
In any case, as
Ryan,
Ok here are the two headers again, both messages originated from the
same computer, smtp server in outlook express is set up to use aloak.ca
(which is not in a dialup block).
The only difference besides content is the recipient address, the only
difference in content was they also contai
If there are recieved-from headers from the recipient's mail system,
then they may get checked in the rbl's depending on how deep they are.
The recipient can use the 'trusted_networks' option that was added in
2.60 to get around that problem. I don't have the start of the thread on
the machine
> At 19:47 24/09/2003 -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:
>
>
>>SA 2.60 is giving a dynablock hit a wopping 2.62 score!!! It isn't
>> really
>>a problem that your SA is hitting this rule (you can always turn it off).
>>The real problem is that everyone else's SA 2.60 is doing the same. If
>>they retain the
But you are missing the point, mail is being identified as
RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK when it is the recipient who is in the dial up block,
not the sender.
The sender is on the rogers network using aloak smtp/pop3 servers,
sending a message to a domain that is in the dial up block.
The message should N
At 19:47 24/09/2003 -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:
SA 2.60 is giving a dynablock hit a wopping 2.62 score!!! It isn't really
a problem that your SA is hitting this rule (you can always turn it off).
The real problem is that everyone else's SA 2.60 is doing the same. If
they retain the default 7 spam
> But you are missing the point, mail is being identified as
> RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK when it is the recipient who is in the dial up block,
> not the sender.
>
> The sender is on the rogers network using aloak smtp/pop3 servers,
> sending a message to a domain that is in the dial up block.
>
> The messa
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Terry Milnes wrote:
> This may be a little difficult to explain but here goes.
>
> All of my systems are behind a nat box. My mail server OS is linux,
> using qmail/vpopmail/mysql procmail etc.etc..
>
> Upgraded to Spamassassin V 2.60 rc6 (the day before the final release)
37 matches
Mail list logo
