In an older episode (Saturday, 5. November 2005 01:23),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wolfgang wrote:
> > after a wave of spam mails two days ago, today there was a new wave
> > advertising a different URI that resolves to the same IP.
> >
> > is there a built in possibility in SA (3.0.4) ro resolve
wolfgang wrote:
> after a wave of spam mails two days ago, today there was a new wave
> advertising a different URI that resolves to the same IP.
>
> is there a built in possibility in SA (3.0.4) ro resolve a URI's
> domain to an IP and match that against a known IP, lets say 1.2.3.4
> and thus sc
after a wave of spam mails two days ago, today there was a new wave
advertising a different URI that resolves to the same IP.
is there a built in possibility in SA (3.0.4) ro resolve a URI's domain to an
IP and match that against a known IP, lets say 1.2.3.4 and thus score any
hostname/domain t
On Freitag, 4. November 2005 21:04 email builder wrote:
> *SOMEONE* out there has to be doing
> something like this, no???
I would be interested in that, too.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc --- it-management Michael Monnerie
// http://zmi.at Tel: 0660/4156531 Linux
>...
Dallas L. Engelken just wrote:
>FYI
>
>Just had a report from a user regarding
>http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=66.249.82.205
>
>64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for xproxy.gmail.com
>64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for gmail.com
>
>That could be effecting quite a lot of people...
>
>
Has anyone developed a rule for the current onslaught of wristwatch spam?
Thanks in advance,
-steve-
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie a écrit :
Finding a neutral 3rd party to do a comparison matrix would be
difficult, but interesting
well, someone may start, and then the page gets reviewed until some
level of agreement is reached...
> >>> As a result of this, however, we are currently burdened with an
> >>> 8GB(! yep, you read it right) bayes database (more than 20K users
> >>> having mail delivered).
> >>
> >> Consider using bayes_expiry_max_db_size in conjunction with
> >> bayes_auto_expire
> >
> > "Using"? So you are s
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
FYI
Just had a report from a user regarding
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=66.249.82.205
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for xproxy.gmail.com
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for gmail.com
That could be effecting quite a lot of people...
D
Lower down,
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> FYI
>
> Just had a report from a user regarding
> http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=66.249.82.205
>
> 64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for xproxy.gmail.com
> 64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for gmail.com
>
> That could be effecting quite a lot of people...
Thi
FYI
Just had a report from a user regarding
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=66.249.82.205
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for xproxy.gmail.com
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for gmail.com
That could be effecting quite a lot of people...
D
mouss wrote:
> and if someone has the courage to devise a comparison matrix... (neutral
> if possible)
Finding a neutral 3rd party to do a comparison matrix would be
difficult, but interesting
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie a écrit :
Since everybody else is plugging themselves ...
All our linux hosting plans come with mail filtering, so you can easily
put your mail with us and your site elsewhere.
Alternatively we have a pure email filtering solution with web-based
frontend to manage
Mark Martinec wrote:
According to SA docs on trusted/internal_networks, the
MSA is to be included in the trusted_networks list, and not in
internal_networks.
Now the question. A mail submitted to MSA from an external
authenticated client (which also happens to be DUL-listed) uses
a sender add
Brian Ipsen wrote:
> The x is numbers - right now, there are 6 digits, but I assume the
> length could be 5-8 digits..
>
>
>>Here's a variant assuming it's always a 7-digit number:
>>
>>body LOCAL_JGH/\bJGH Ref\.: \d{7}\b/
>
>
>>Here's one assuming a 5-8 digit alphanumeric (undersco
Hi,
> > I'm no expert in creating rules - so hopefully someone can help me
> > with this simple one:
> >
> > I want to assign a negative score for all mails, that has the text
> >
> > JGH Ref.: xxx
> >
>
> body LOCAL_JGH/\bJGH Ref\.: xxx\b/
> describe LOCAL_JGHHas special
Found it - the KAZEEM rule was hiding in one of local rules files I have
Apologies for the noise..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 November 2005
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:01 PM
> To: Martin Hepworth
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lint failure on RDJ for 2nd day.
>
>
> Hello Martin,
>
> Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 12:57:22 AM
I am using the single user unix instialltion and version 3.1.0, on a
RHEL 3 machine, I am able to get spamassassin to work, but i'm unable to
get it to log when it catches things as spam, and when its clean, i'm
wanting to to an mrtg for my users to see how much spam has come to the
server.
All th
Brian Ipsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm no expert in creating rules - so hopefully someone can help me with
> this simple one:
>
> I want to assign a negative score for all mails, that has the text
>
> JGH Ref.: xxx
>
body LOCAL_JGH /\bJGH Ref\.: xxx\b/
describe LOCAL_JGH Has special r
At 09:38 AM 11/4/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/2005 9:14:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>What really bugs me are the scores for ALL_TRUSTED and
>SUBJECT_EXCESS_QP.
Why does the score for ALL_TRUSTED bug you here? that's a NEGATIVE scoring
rule.
Hi,
I'm no expert in creating rules - so hopefully someone can help me with
this simple one:
I want to assign a negative score for all mails, that has the text
JGH Ref.: xxx
Present in the subject ( where xx can be a series of numbers, that is
1-6 digits). It doesn't matter if other te
Hi,
I'm no expert in creating rules - so hopefully someone can help me with
this simple one:
I want to assign a negative score for all mails, that has the text
JGH Ref.: xxx
In a message dated 11/4/2005 9:14:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>What really bugs me are the scores for ALL_TRUSTED and>SUBJECT_EXCESS_QP.Why does the score for ALL_TRUSTED bug you here? that's a NEGATIVE scoring rule.
I ran into a similar situation. I have no trusted o
At 01:23 AM 11/4/2005, Mathias Homann wrote:
Hi,
here's the headers of a mail that got scored (ok, not very high but it
should get no score at all):
What really bugs me are the scores for ALL_TRUSTED and
SUBJECT_EXCESS_QP.
Why does the score for ALL_TRUSTED bug you here? that's a NEGATI
Pierre Thomson wrote:
> If you are trying to minimize the score for your own bulk mailing, then you
> should be
I am not. I was just wondering about the scores that that mail has got, as well
as a bit
concerned about the fact that after upgrading to SA 3.1.0 i get all kind of
weird results, f
Mathias Homann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> here's the headers of a mail that got scored (ok, not very high but it
> should get no score at all):
>
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
> DCC_CHECK,SUBJECT_EXCESS_QP autolearn=no version=3.1.0
Why should it get no sco
Jason Haar wrote:
Hi there
I just did a stat-run on email I received 31st Oct, and found that of
the mail SA scored lower than 5/5 (i.e. SA classified as "ham"), a large
amount was SPAM. In fact it only caught 80% of the SPAM I received that
day (this is with SA 3.1.0)
Of that I was able to tel
28 matches
Mail list logo
