Here is my situation. Currently, our e-mail isn't managed within our
organization. We have a third party ISP who is hosting the e-mail for
us. We simply configure our Outlook clients to authenticate to their
SMTP/POP servers. Is there a way that I could setup a SpamAssassin box
at each of my sites
Title: More spam since upgrading
I
filter a fair amount of email with 3.0.4, and very little spam ever gets through
these days. Almost none actually.
Make
sure you have everything working correctly.
run
the command
spamassassin -D --lint
Look
very very carefully in the results for an
Hi All
I am facing one issue with procmailrc file when spamassassin is run
through procmailrc as
I call spamc from /etc/procmailrc, and it runs in privilege mode for
all my users.
This way they can put any thing in the file and in mins can get access
to the root user. so big security risk to box
Title: More spam since upgrading
Morning list.
I have recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 3.0.4 from 3.0.1 and have noticed
Quite a large increase of the number of SPAM slipping through.
Have all the standard ruleset scores been lowered?
I am using the rulesets from sare aswell.
Does a
Chris Santerre wrote on Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:39:48 -0400 :
>> Just a heads up to all, multi.uribl.com will not be included in this
>> release by default. You have to manually add it. The staff of
>> URIBL.com want it this way for now.
"Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mean all the
>
Hi,
I just installed spamassassin together with qmail, qmail-scanner and
clam on a server to try it out. I am planning on using it to filter spam
and then forward the mail to the "real mailserver". This seems to work
fine so far, I've set it up with the sqlstuff described at
http://wiki.apach
Chris Santerre wrote on Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:39:48 -0400 :
> Just a heads up to all, multi.uribl.com will not be included in this release
> by default. You have to manually add it. The staff of URIBL.com want it this
> way for now.
You mean all the
urirhssub URIBL_SC_SURBL multi.surbl.org.
> Or am I missing something?
Can't answer the SQL question, but you are missing one thing. _HITS_
changed to _SCORE_.
Loren
> - DNSBL lookups and other DNS operations are now more
> efficient, by using a
> custom single-socket event-based model instead of Net::DNS.
Just a heads up to all, multi.uribl.com will not be included in this release
by default. You have to manually add it. The staff of URIBL.com want it thi
I just noticed that what worked in 2.x no longer works, specifically:
rewrite_subject 1
subject_tag [Spam: _HITS_ of _REQD_]
has changed to:
rewrite_header subject [Spam: _HITS_ of _REQD_]
All well and good, but ... how do you store this in SQL?
INSERT INTO table VALUES ( 'username',
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:10:05PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> For those of your that are installing Mail::DomainKeys. Please keep the
> following in mind.
>
> The domain keys plugin is experimental. One of the primary reasons it is
> experimental is because the Mail::DomainKeys mo
Thanks for the additional info, Jason!
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
On 2005-07-04 02:22:14 -0400, Greg Allen wrote:
> works that way from the little I can find on the subject. Procmail doesn't
> even create a log file for me. So, I am now looking at maybe using
man procmailrc
VERBOSE You can turn on extended diagnostics by setting this
variable to `
Brian Taber wrote:
The second is about the scores assigned to SPF failures. SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL
has a score of 3.140 (so if the provider has ~all in their SPF record,
they aren't really sure if their SPF record covers all of their servers,
you get SOFTFAIL), but SPF_HELO_FAIL has a score of 0.001 (
14 matches
Mail list logo
