Re: How to tell you ISP their SA is misconfigured?

At 20:01 26-05-2007, Chris wrote: I believe I mentioned in a post earlier that my ISP/DSL provider, Embarq, quit their contract with Earthlink and chose Synacor to provide mail service or so I think. What I received from one of their QA guys says this: [snip] Synacor raised the required scor

Re: How to tell you ISP their SA is misconfigured?

On Saturday 26 May 2007 10:31 pm, Matt Kettler wrote: > Chris wrote: > > Old-X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=12.351 tagged_above=-10 required=10 > > tests=[ADVANCE_FEE_1=0, ADVANCE_FEE_2=1.392, ADVANCE_FEE_3=3.336, > > ADVANCE_FEE_4=3.727, ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_60=1, > > DNS_FRO

Re: How to tell you ISP their SA is misconfigured?

Chris wrote: > Old-X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=12.351 tagged_above=-10 required=10 > tests=[ADVANCE_FEE_1=0, ADVANCE_FEE_2=1.392, ADVANCE_FEE_3=3.336, > ADVANCE_FEE_4=3.727, ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_60=1, > DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708, > DNS_FROM

How to tell you ISP their SA is misconfigured?

I believe I mentioned in a post earlier that my ISP/DSL provider, Embarq, quit their contract with Earthlink and chose Synacor to provide mail service or so I think. What I received from one of their QA guys says this: > The Embarq side handles anything that is email client, browser or line > pr

Re: Not scored

KURZEL: T2Y.F http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200705.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ups, sorry I didn't read that one

Re: Not scored

At 01:00 26-05-2007, Martin Hochreiter wrote: Can somebody give me a hint, why these mails (see below) are not tested? (Some of the mail sender are whitelisted, but many of them are just not tested) [snip] TYCHE ENERGY KURZEL: T2Y.F http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-use

Clamav *zoo insecure dependency

If you built clamav with optional zoo or unzoo depencencies, you may wish to remove unzoo (not maintained anymore) and at least patch zoo. https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=522 -- Michael Scheidell, CTO Join SECNAP at SFTA Ft. Lauderdate, FL May 31 Free event http://www.southflori

Re: Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

Matt Kettler wrote: > Interesting.. What parameters are being passed to spamd on startup? > Any chance there's a --siteconfigpath option in there? I'm using a vanilla gentoo install for the start scripts... I changed "-m 5" for "-m 1" because I don't have much RAM and I'm happy for messages to wait

Re: Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

Steve wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Did you restart spamd after adding the ZMIde_* rules? >> >> Spamd won't re-parse files in /etc/mail/spamassassin. >> >> > I hadn't just added the ZMIde_* rules - but, just to be sure, I checked: > > > I don't think that explains things... > Also

Re: Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

Steve wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Did you restart spamd after adding the ZMIde_* rules? >> >> Spamd won't re-parse files in /etc/mail/spamassassin. >> >> > I hadn't just added the ZMIde_* rules - but, just to be sure, I checked: > > -- > $ su > Password: > # /etc/init.d/spamd resta

Re: Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

Matt Kettler wrote: > Did you restart spamd after adding the ZMIde_* rules? > > Spamd won't re-parse files in /etc/mail/spamassassin. > I hadn't just added the ZMIde_* rules - but, just to be sure, I checked: -- $ su Password: # /etc/init.d/spamd restart * Stopping spamd ...

Re: Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

Steve wrote: > N.B. IMAGESHACK_URI is a rule of my own... What I want to know is why > does spamassassin match with the ZMIde_* rules - whereas spamc doesn't. > I'm using gentoo and have installed spamassassin 3.1.8 and RulesDuJour. > I've run sa-update. > > -- > $ spamassassin < spkeluation.eml

VBounce not working in 3.2.0

Hi, I had Justin's VBounce ruleset working fine until I switched to 3.2.0 and I seem to have bounce messages coming through again. I've checked that spamassassin is loading the plugin and it is, but testing with both a genuine bounce (I've commented out the whitelist_bounce_relays entries from

Re: Out of memory when deleting address from AWL

Matt Kettler wrote: > Alexander Shikoff wrote: > > I get an error when trying to remove an address from AWL: > > # spamassassin -x --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [85023] warn: auto-whitelist: open of auto-whitelist file failed: Out of > > memory during ridiculously large request

Bemused by difference between spamassassin and spamc...

N.B. IMAGESHACK_URI is a rule of my own... What I want to know is why does spamassassin match with the ZMIde_* rules - whereas spamc doesn't. I'm using gentoo and have installed spamassassin 3.1.8 and RulesDuJour. I've run sa-update. -- $ spamassassin < spkeluation.eml | grep -A2 'X-Spam-Status'

Not scored

Hi! Can somebody give me a hint, why these mails (see below) are not tested? (Some of the mail sender are whitelisted, but many of them are just not tested) lg Martin --- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type:

NO_DNS_FOR_FROM false positive

spamassassin should check that envelope have valid mx olso not just say if missing a record in dns :( postfix have the same error with reject_unknown_sender_domain take care, as long as the from can be bounced its ok -- This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.