David Brodbeck wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> MUA's creating headers for their own internal purposes is a
>> dangerous idea. But many do it. This may be the tip of the
>> iceberg here.
>
> Sure. Sending Outlook messages with flags, do-by dates, and "urgent"
> status is an old trick. Al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MUA's creating headers for their own internal purposes is a dangerous idea. But many do it. This may be the tip of the iceberg here.
Sure. Sending Outlook messages with flags, do-by dates, and "urgent"
status is an old trick. All those things are controlled by custo
jdow wrote:
From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 2004 September, 20 11:20
Subject: Re: Mozilla Headers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add
At 03:51 PM 9/20/2004, Shane Metler wrote:
describeSKM_SPAM_LIST_B_236 SKM Rules
bodySKM_SPAM_LIST_B_236 m/jgsgfta\.com/i
score SKM_SPAM_LIST_B_236 50.0
Style note: the m modifier to regexes is pointless for body rules. All
EOL's ar
Hi there,
Using SpamAssassin 2.64, I have found a few cases where the target
domain of a custom rule can not be matched via any of these three rule
types.
The target of my rule is a plain text (non HREF) URL that is
obfusticated in a way that seems to miss my rules.
My rule: (I've have both rawb
From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 2004 September, 20 11:20
Subject: Re: Mozilla Headers
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >David Brodbeck wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mozilla Mai
Folks,
I checked my last 20,000 spam emails and found that 250 of them had
bogus "X-Mozilla-Status" headers. I have found no instances of these
headers in ham, although I admit that I don't keep nearly as large a
corpus of ham as I do spam.
I have created a new bugzilla entry for this:
http:/
Hi,
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Sherwood Botsford wrote:
> > > In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote
> > > sender would connect directly to our SMTP server from
> > > their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our customer's an
> > > email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails
> > > being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2
headers to all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever
added to outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2
headers to all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever
added to outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding
David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
>> Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2
>> headers to all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever
>> added to outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding an email that
>> alrea
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 12:47:21PM -0400, Dan wrote:
> I upgraded Berkeley DB from db3 to db4 recently (as well as upgrading
> Perl, Postfix, installing Amavis, and a score of modules) and now
> Spamassassin is giving an error about the bayes db's:
>
> My assumption is that the bayes db's need to
I upgraded Berkeley DB from db3 to db4 recently (as well as upgrading
Perl, Postfix, installing Amavis, and a score of modules) and now
Spamassassin is giving an error about the bayes db's:
Cannot open bayes_path /root/.spamassassin/bayes R/O: Inappropriate
ioctl for device
My assumption is that
The school I work at is some 20 km from the nearest phone
exchange. DSL, ADSL, Cable are all non-starters here. We
connect through DirecPC oneway. So our outbound connection
is thorugh Telus, our local phone company. They refuse to
give out a static IP.
Ok, so run your smtp through their s
Ok, I'm confused:
In local.cf I have the line:
add_header all Level _STARS(+)_ _HITS_
And if I grep through my current mail spool, I have a block
with this tag present, but of today's mail, it is present
in 2 messages out of 30 or so.
Also, I have
rewrite_subject 1
report_safe 0
subject_ta
At 11:34 AM 9/20/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey all, posed this question a week ago, never got an answer, so Im trying
again. Redhat and Sendmail and the procmail get this occasionally:
mkdir .: Permission denied at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 825
procmail: Progr
> And since nothing is special about my own MS SMTPSVC (Win2k3 SMTP
> Server), I believe the behavior of received.pm should be changed to
> allow SA running on those machines to properly detect the EHLO
> string, and thus allow SPF Detection to properly execute.
So what *do* your mail headers loo
At 09:25 AM 9.20.2004 -0600, Sherwood Botsford wrote:
>
>> > In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote
>> > sender would connect directly to our SMTP server from
>> > their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our customer's an
>> > email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails
>> > being s
Avi Shatz wrote:
> The only thing I wanted to prove with this is that line, that is
> created by my local mail server (the last hop, and the most important
> one for SPF), does indeed contains the EHLO string that isn't
> detected correctly by SA 3.0rc5.
OK...
> And since nothing is special about
Hey all, posed this question a week ago, never got an answer, so Im trying
again. Redhat and Sendmail and the procmail get this occasionally:
mkdir .: Permission denied at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 825
procmail: Program failure (70) of "/usr/bin/spamassassin"
proc
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Sherwood Botsford wrote:
In this case, you should get a "smart host" on some other mail server, and
authenticate against that. You are still an endpoint, and should not be
directly talking to mail servers. Only mail servers should talk to mail
servers.
-Dan
In my logic,
> > In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote
> > sender would connect directly to our SMTP server from
> > their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our customer's an
> > email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails
> > being sent from these DSL/cable/dialup IP would
> > normally be rel
Hi!
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2
headers to all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever
added to outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding an email that
already has them.
(And the little light goes on...)
Is this why I've been receiving spam that's
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote
> Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2
> headers to all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever
> added to outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding an email that
> already has them.
(And the li
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird add X-Mozilla-Status and Status2 headers to
all emails they recieve. I do not believe they are ever added to
outgoing emails, even if you are forwarding an email that already has them.
David Hooton wrote:
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me if the following headers are ever
>>> For the sake of spam/virus elimination, I wouldn't say that there IS
a "standard" in add-ons.
Fair enough... I'm using Suse Linux server 8.1, Postfix, Amavis-d, SA
2.64, Razor, Rules_Du_Jour (most of them, but not all), SpamCop URI, and
manual Bayes learning (via IMAP and a shared folder). Thi
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me if the following headers are ever legitimately
created by a mail client?
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
I seem to be able to find them only in my spam corpus..
--
Regards,
David Hooton
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Spam Admin wrote:
So, any clue where in my setup I'm missing the part where it
over-writes any existing header info? I'm using Postfix, Amavis, and all
the other standard add-ons...
One minor point of contention here.
For the sake of spam/virus elimination, I wouldn't say that
I've noticed some spam getting through over the last few days; the only
common thread is that it *appears* as if my header info is not replacing
some that already exists in the email. To further clarify, the
"X-Spam-Status:" and "X-Spam-Level:" are there, and even the subject
line was edited with "
At 01:15 AM 9/20/2004 -0400, Eggleton, Michael wrote:
My question is:
Is it spamassassin that is seeing the other X-Spam-Status header and
using it over again? or is it SA-Qmail-Scanner?
It's not spamassassin.. try it yourself on the command line.. SA always
clobbers the existing X-Spam-Status
At 02:16 PM 9/20/2004 +0200, Andy wrote:
You already had a look to the headers?
Andy, that's doubtful. Julia's on an exchange box, and last I heard,
Outlook hides list-* headers from users. Maybe they've fixed that since the
List-* headers are an RFC standard way of handling lists, but that doesn
You already had a look to the headers?
"McWhirter,Julia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have typed:
How do I get off this list
Regards
Julia McWhirter
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, McWhirter,Julia wrote:
But this list is 100 percent confirmed opt-in!
How do I get off this list
Regards
Julia McWhirter
--
"Happy, Sad, Happy, Sad, Happy, Sad, Happy, Intruiged! I've never been so
in touch with my emotions!"
-AndrAIa as Hexadecimal, Reboot Episode 3.2.3
--
Title: Message
How do I
get off this list
Regards
Julia
McWhirter
Hello, all.
I have used spamassassin(2.63 ) well for some months.
But some problems occur often about procmail like below.
* normal status ->works well.
# mail -v root
Subject: test
test
.
Cc:
root... Connecting to local...
root... Sent
* abnormal status ->some problem.
# mail -v root
Subject: t
We've gotten a couple documents form the Internet Society of China
www.isc.org.cn
relating to email delivery and I'd like to request some help in
translating them:
http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc
http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc
The documents are some proposed email delivery standards called
"
I have been using the
SA-Qmail-Scanner-1.23
I'm being spammed with a spam message that
looks like it targets getting past the quarantine. This is very
frustrating.
This is the header information that it has before
Spamassassin ever sees the message:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssas
I have a number of mistakenly caught emails that I would like to revoke as
spam. I use KMail with in maildir format. I am using SA version 2.63.
I have tried running "spamassassin --revoke .Mail/Stuff/cur/*" which only
seems to hang.
I have also tried
"spamassassin --revoke .Mail/Stuff/cur/1
Good evening, Doug,
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Doug Wolfgram wrote:
> This has probably been covered here before, but I missed it. I have been
> swamped in the past few weeks with spam that scores around -4.9. What is
> this and how to I get rid of it??? Is there some parameter that says never
-4.9 is probably something like BAYES_00. It sounds like you have bayes
trained to recognize spam as ham.
Loren
This has probably been covered here before, but I missed it. I have been
swamped in the past few weeks with spam that scores around -4.9. What is
this and how to I get rid of it??? Is there some parameter that says never
go negative? These spammers are smart enough now to create negative scores
Just a quick note that several rules files have been updated:
Headers -- 70_sare_header*.cf, files 0, 1, 2, 3 -- a few additions,
several score changes, a few old rules moved from files 0 and 1 to files
2 and 3.
URI -- 70_sare_uri.cf -- minor improvement to one rule, migrated two
rules from ratwa
42 matches
Mail list logo
