Jonas,
thanks for the reply. Some queries below, if you have the time.
Mike
On 6/14/07, Jonas Eckerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Blocking because a system/netblock has made many attempts to send
to non-existant users makes sense.
Any single address from wich a certain number of such attempt
Thanks Kris.
I Googled for "MIMEDefang and AD" and came across this post [1] by Brian
at RoaringPenguine; he suggests not to use MIMEDefang as it imposes a
heavy load on Exchange/AD on Windows 2003. He provides an alternative
by releasing 2 scripts that automate the harvesting of email addresses
Jerry Durand wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>> Jerry Durand wrote:
>>> My message came back tagged as spam, but I have this list
>>> whitelisted_from_spf. ???
>>
>> It hit SPF_FAIL, thus no SPF based whitelist hit. You may want to
>> run the message through s
On Jun 14, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Actually the return path is (similar to):
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...so SPF shouldn't fail.
So, how do you set up SA to allow these lists that act as an
unauthorized relay?
Make sure your milter is providing a return path h
Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Jerry Durand wrote:
My message came back tagged as spam, but I have this list
whitelisted_from_spf. ???
It hit SPF_FAIL, thus no SPF based whitelist hit. You may want to run
the message through spamassassin -Dspf
On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Jerry Durand wrote:
My message came back tagged as spam, but I have this list
whitelisted_from_spf. ???
It hit SPF_FAIL, thus no SPF based whitelist hit. You may want to
run the message through spamassassin -Dspf to find out why.
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 17:09 -0700, Jerry Durand wrote:
> This came in with no tag or subject modification. Any idea what's
> up? Amavis log follows the message.
My guess is that you're using spamc and for some reason it couldn't
connect with spamd. If this is the case, spamc will return the em
On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Most likely reason: recipient domain (durandinterstellar.com)
is not considered local. The X-Spam-* headers are inserted only
for incoming and all-internal mail, i.e. when recipient is local.
Check your @local_domains_maps setting.
Mark
Tha
Jerry Durand wrote:
My message came back tagged as spam, but I have this list
whitelisted_from_spf. ???
It hit SPF_FAIL, thus no SPF based whitelist hit. You may want to run
the message through spamassassin -Dspf to find out why.
Daryl
X-Timeout-Protection: 0
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-
My message came back tagged as spam, but I have this list
whitelisted_from_spf. ???
X-Timeout-Protection: 0
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.5.0 (20070423) at interstellar.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 3.165
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.165 tagged_abov
Jerry,
> This came in with no tag or subject modification. Any idea what's
> up? Amavis log follows the message.
> (09479-05) Passed, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> quarantine HhrEwzHAq2Ia, Message-ID: <...>, Hits: 10.769
Most likely reason: recipient domain (durandinterstellar.
Martin Strand wrote:
It's fine for scoring against, but blocking is insanity!
I tested SpamCop for our info@ address at work (about 200 messages a
day) and didn't get a single FP for six months.
I use it for blocking on our mailserver now (about 2000 accounts) and
haven't received any compl
This came in with no tag or subject modification. Any idea what's
up? Amavis log follows the message.
X-Timeout-Protection: 0
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murder ([unix socket])
by smtp.interstellar.com (Cyrus v2.2.12-OS X 10.4.8) with LMTPA;
Thu, 14 Jun 200
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:51:50 +0200, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_c
John Rudd wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
Er, no. zen OR sbl-xbl. I've found spamcop to hit far too much ha
LuKreme wrote:
On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
Er, no. zen OR sbl-xbl. I've found spamcop to hit far too much ham for
my tastes,
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric W. Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spamd crashes when using sa-compile body (undefined symbol)
>
>
> After eagerly compiling my ruleset I was sad to discover that
>
Was worried while reading complaints on users... but still tried to install.
I have two systems, one originally a Red Hat 7.3, but most things later
compiled from source, including gcc 4.0.0 and perl from cpan
Another is a Debian Etch, perl from debian repo.
I tried to install SpamAssassin 3.2
Daniel J McDonald-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:44 -0700, Peter Pluta wrote:
>
>> I see, I still get 5-6 spams per day or so, but I have bayes and auto
>> white
>> listing enabled. The DB so far has 2 hams and 14 spams recorded. I wonder
>> how long it will take to see some good result
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:44 -0700, Peter Pluta wrote:
> I see, I still get 5-6 spams per day or so, but I have bayes and auto white
> listing enabled. The DB so far has 2 hams and 14 spams recorded. I wonder
> how long it will take to see some good results from bayes and awl.
Bayes is ignored unt
LuKreme wrote:
>
> On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
>> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
>> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>> reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
>
> Er, no. zen OR sbl-xbl. I've found spamcop to hit far too much
After eagerly compiling my ruleset I was sad to discover that spamd is
quietly crashing with little or no error messages:
Jun 14 14:06:44 ace2 spamd[12146]: zoom: able to use 829/829
'body_0' compiled rules (100%)
Jun 14 14:06:44 ace2 spamd[12146]: logger: removing stderr
method
If I run spama
On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
Er, no. zen OR sbl-xbl. I've found spamcop to hit far too much ham
for my tastes, and I never fou
> sg wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > We are using MS Exchange 2003 server on windows 2003 server. We have
> > registered with domain service and using 50 mail users. We
> are getting lot
> > of spam mails. I want to know the configuring details of
> > Mail-spamassassin-3.1.7 and how to control the spam mails
Mike Kenny wrote:
Does blocking us on this basis make any sense?
Blocking because a system/netblock has made many attempts to send
to non-existant users makes sense.
Any single address from wich a certain number of such attempts is
done during a the last n minutes are blocked with a tenpor
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:45:17AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> I downloaded the tarfile and built an rpm. When I installed the rpm, the
> rpm was smart enough to restart SA. Should this postinst code in the rpm
> not also have rerun sa-compile before the restart? Seems logical to me.
The scrip
Hello,during the "make" phase of spamassassin I get the following error:>>configure: error: Cannot use SSL; libraries or header files are missing.>>You may try using 'configure --disable-ssl'.>>make: *** [spamc/Makefile] Fehler 1I've run the following command before: >>perl Makefile.PL ENABLE_SSL="
A guess-- you have
server localhost
in /etc/resolv.conf.
--j.
Helmut Schneider writes:
> Hi,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# uname -rs
> OpenBSD 4.0
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#
>
> When I run sa-update I get the error below:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# sa-update --nogpg
> can't resolve "localhost"
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# uname -rs
OpenBSD 4.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#
When I run sa-update I get the error below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# sa-update --nogpg
can't resolve "localhost" to address at
/usr/local/libdata/perl5/site_perl/i386-openbsd/Net/DNS/Resolver/Base.pm
line 751.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:30:10AM -0500, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> > >Cans rules_du_jour work?
> > >
> > >
> > >Still getting a no update state.
> > >
> >
> > SARE is back up (knock on wood). Delete your .cf files and
> re-run RDJ...
> >
> > --
> > Dallas Engelken
> > [EMAI
Hi
It works fine on several Freebsd 5.x i386 machines. sa-compile works
too. No problem so far after a few million scans. Thank you. I will try
your updated version for amd64 at the end of this week.
Regards,
Thomas
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> If anyone wants a 'pre release' of the Freebsd sa 3
Anthony Kamau wrote:
Any chance you know of a quick and dirty method to implement sendmail AD
authentication? I did search during build of the sendmail box, but did
not find conclusive instructions to do so - possibly because I was under
immense pressure to get a spam identifier installed.
C
On Wednesday, Jun 13th 2007 at 17:14 -0400, quoth Rosenbaum, Larry M.:
=>> From: Steven W. Orr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=>>
=>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -Uvh
=>> /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/spamassassin-3.2.1-1.i386.rpm
=>> /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.1-1.i386.rpm
=>> Pre
Jason Levine wrote:
>
> /usr/bin/spamc -u ${user} -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} $
> {recipient}
>
> Spamd is running daemonized, with the following options:
>
> spamd --max-children=10 -d -x -q -i 127.0.0.1 -A
> 209.10.108.198,204.193.152.163,192.168.1.163,127.0.0.1
>
> I'm using MySQL
I also have seen this message from the nightly sa-update.
I assume one of the sare rules has a bug in it.
-L
--
Larry Ludwig
Empowering Media
1-866-792-0489 x600
Have you visited our customer service blog?
http://www.supportem.com/blog/
> -Original Message-
> From: Gene Heskett [mail
Greetings folks;
rules: score undef for rule 'MISSING_SUBJECT' in '' 'MISSING_SUBJECT'
at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line
2140.
rules: score undef for rule 'EMPTY_MESSAGE' in '' 'EMPTY_MESSAGE'
at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgS
> (now if we could decide how to fix/check umask.
> No real way of knowing if it's a install/reinstall,
> Only flag is during portupgrade I think.
I see, I thought the ports Makefile explicitly makes these
directories if missing, but now I see the perl makefile does it:
...
Installing /usr/lo
Possibly related to
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5511
as discussed in the "DNS tests getting aborted" thread?
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
From: Rosenbaum, Larry M.
38 matches
Mail list logo
