1.
I am getting following errors in my maillog.
spamd[6203]: connection from localhost.mydomain.com
[127.0.0.
1] at port 52118
spamd[6203]: info: setuid to clamav succeeded
spamd[6203]: Creating default_prefs
[/nonexistent/.spamassa
ssin/user_prefs]
spamd[6203]: Cannot write to
/nonexistent/.spamas
I am using DCC-1.3.23 to do greylisting (dccd greylisting server with
the dccm sendmail milter). As a result DCC checksums are performed prior
to the Spamassassin 3.1.0 scan. Therefore rather than repeat the DCC
checks in Spamassassin I have constructed a custom ruleset to perform
the check off
Matt Kettler a écrit :
That really makes me wonder if DJB is intentionally trying to make plain
qmail an unusable POS so that nobody will be able to use it without
patching. Or is it a purely accidental side effect?
Any MTA that can ever fail to report the local hostname in the "by"
clause
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 09:48 AM 12/10/2005, List Mail User wrote:
>> Received: from unknown (HELO 207.96.139.179) (unknown)
>> by unknown with SMTP; 9 Dec 2005 23:37:06 -
>
>That's a pretty scary Received: line. At least two of those unknown's
should be
>known. At absolute minimum the "
Hi,
while I o not ilke neither html mails nor outlook stationery, they seem to ne a
fact of life.
A rule that drops mails with an image might drop mails using stationary
Wolfgang Hamann
>> On 12/11/2005 08:31 pm, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> > Pollywog wrote on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:42:38 +:
>> >
On 12/11/2005 08:31 pm, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Pollywog wrote on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:42:38 +:
> > they do use different names for
> > their files
>
> well, not according to his posting.
The only thing I could think of to deal with it was to add a Maildrop rule to
send such files to the spam fo
Pollywog wrote on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:42:38 +:
> they do use different names for
> their files
well, not according to his posting.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 12/11/2005 07:27 pm, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> SickBoy wrote:
> > Pollywog wrote:
> >> I checked another machine that has not been patched and is also running
> >> the same software versions and there were no errors there, which
> >> surprised me, since I had not applied the patch there.
>
> T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi,
> Well, the first thing U have to do after installing the pyzor is to
> issue command (prefferably after su-ing to user that will be actually
> used to invoke the spam scanning) pyzor discover
>
> That will download the server address (the r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OpenMacNews wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i've just installed Pyzor for the first time w/ SA -HEAD on OSX.
>
> grep pyzor on SA --lint's output shows:
>
> [15236] dbg: pyzor: network tests on, attempting Pyzor
> [15236] dbg: pyzor: pyzor is available: /usr/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi all,
i've just installed Pyzor for the first time w/ SA -HEAD on OSX.
grep pyzor on SA --lint's output shows:
[15236] dbg: pyzor: network tests on, attempting Pyzor
[15236] dbg: pyzor: pyzor is available: /usr/local/pyzor/bin/pyzor
[15236] d
SickBoy wrote:
Pollywog wrote:
I checked another machine that has not been patched and is also running the
same software versions and there were no errors there, which surprised me,
since I had not applied the patch there.
The 'patched errors' only happen in a select few messages. So it's
Pyzor is back up from this end:
$ pyzor ping
66.250.40.33:24441 (200, 'OK')
Ed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Randomly generated quote:
"Let no one come to you without leaving better and happier."
- Mother Teresa
Heute (am 11.12.2005) schrieb Pollywog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]),
> I checked another machine that has not been patched and is also running the
> same software versions and there were no errors there, which surprised me,
> since I had not applied the patch there.
I`ve patched nothing. And I have no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pollywog wrote:
>
> I checked another machine that has not been patched and is also running the
> same software versions and there were no errors there, which surprised me,
> since I had not applied the patch there.
>
>
> 8)
>
As far as I'm con
On 12/11/2005 06:46 pm, SickBoy wrote:
>
> In the time of our lil' conversation pyzor got back from dead and it's
> functioning properly now.
>
> The thing I ment was that the pyzor suddenly died few days ago, and
> finnaly got back this afternoon; applying a patch has nothing to do with
> the ser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pollywog wrote:
>
> Mine says this, but I applied the 3 in 1 patch that I learned about in this
> thread:
>
>
> sending: 'User: anonymous\nTime: 1134325707\nSig:
> 177d0df77c0b91197da93b41c85c4f5f3d9b823b\n\nOp: ping\nThread: 31207\nPV:
> 2.0\n\n
On 12/11/2005 11:13 am, SickBoy wrote:
> pyzor -d ping
Mine says this, but I applied the 3 in 1 patch that I learned about in this
thread:
sending: 'User: anonymous\nTime: 1134325707\nSig:
177d0df77c0b91197da93b41c85c4f5f3d9b823b\n\nOp: ping\nThread: 31207\nPV:
2.0\n\n'
received: 'Thread: 312
On 12/11/2005 05:31 pm, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Craig Zeigler wrote on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:11:15 -0500:
> > The filename is Part 1.1.jpg.
>
> Use MailScanner or another tool to reject/delete mail with that name. If
> it is coming from zombies, just disallow zombies at MTA level. Not
> everything anti
Craig Zeigler wrote on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:11:15 -0500:
> The filename is Part 1.1.jpg.
Use MailScanner or another tool to reject/delete mail with that name. If
it is coming from zombies, just disallow zombies at MTA level. Not
everything anti-spam should be done with SA.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl,
On 12/11/2005 04:11 pm, Craig Zeigler wrote:
> I have been getting hundreds of these messages per day and don't know
> how to stop them. The bayes is only come back at 60%.
>
> They are the messages advertising drugs with a random subject (yes, I
> know, one of the many) The filename is Part 1.1.jp
I have been getting hundreds of these messages per day and don't know
how to stop them. The bayes is only come back at 60%.
They are the messages advertising drugs with a random subject (yes, I
know, one of the many) The filename is Part 1.1.jpg. There is no virus
that I can find.
Does anyon
Craig McLean skrev:
> Hey folks, I was having a thought about phone numbers in spam messages,
> and the old brain pinged an idea at me. I'd really appreciate any feedback!
>
> It occurred to me that I get a fair amount of spam which includes
> phone/fax numbers. It also occurred to me that given a
Hi,
I had a look at the relevant code - qmail is just receiving the info via
env vars.
So it might be possible to get the effect by calling
qmail-smtpd from inetd rather than from the tcpserver program, or a broken
implementation
of setting env vars, or by adding an rblsmtpd type process that uns
M. Lewis a écrit :
Maybe we should qualify that a little bit more Mouss, "maybe SA should
not set ALL_TRUSTED if fetchmail is used and the upstream server is
using qmail".
my ISP uses qmail, but provides correct Received headers. so it
shouldn't be related to qmail. I think it should be li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Knuth wrote:
> Heute (am 11.12.2005) schrieb Chris,
>
>
>>This may be OT, but has anyone noticed that pyzor has been timeing out for
>>the past three days? If so, anyone have any idea as to why?
>
>
>
> no problems here
>
>
Hmm, are you SU
26 matches
Mail list logo
