On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, John Rudd wrote:
> What I understood is that he'd like the contents of the tar file to be:
>
>
> ./Botnet-X.Y/Botnet.pm
> ./Botnet-X.Y/Botnet.cf
> etc
>
> instead of
>
> ./Botnet.pm
> ./Botnet.cf
Correct.
> And that's going to require a re-working of how/where I do the
>
John Rudd wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:05:31 -0700:
> And that's going to require a re-working of how/where I do the
> development of the plugin.
No, it just requires to copy those 7 files (I didn't count again) to a
location where you collect and store your release files. For instance to
/what
René Berber wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
John Rudd wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700:
I'll look into re-working it.
Thanks! You just need to tar it up including the enclosing directory.
No, that's not all I have to do.
THAT part is the trivial part.
But in order to
John Rudd wrote:
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> John Rudd wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700:
>>
>>> I'll look into re-working it.
>>
>> Thanks! You just need to tar it up including the enclosing directory.
>>
>
> No, that's not all I have to do.
>
> THAT part is the trivial part.
>
> But in or
Hi, list. I am unable to compile Mail::SPF for SpamAssassin 3.2.2 due to
being unable to compile the required NetAddr cpan module first. It is
giving a "can't figure out ENDIANness" error. I'm on a little endian
machine, Tru64 5.1B, using native compile.
I'm about to file a bug report to cpan
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
John Rudd wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700:
I'll look into re-working it.
Thanks! You just need to tar it up including the enclosing directory.
No, that's not all I have to do.
THAT part is the trivial part.
But in order to get there, I have to alter my develo
John Rudd wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700:
> I'll look into re-working it.
Thanks! You just need to tar it up including the enclosing directory.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Yes, I use a local DNS server.. Which does cache.
It was a little while ago, so I don't know if I still have mail logs that I
can look at.
-Brent
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:17 PM
To: Brent Kennedy
Cc: users@spamassassin.a
the instruction basically said to through the files into the spamassassin folder and restart
-- Original Message ---
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:28:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Botnet 0.8 Plugin is available (FINALLY!!!)
> > I added thi
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
John Rudd wrote on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:39:07 -0700:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/Botnet-0.8.tar
Hi John, just checking out your plugin the first time. I notice that it
just untars all files to the current location. It would be nice if you
could encapsulate
I use it on a large installation (up to a 2 million messages per day).
Do you have at least a caching name server running on the hosts where
you do the scanning? It does do quite a few DNS checks, which
could/would affect latency.
Brent Kennedy wrote:
I don't mean to rain on the botnet pl
I added this and everything came back labled as SPAM
Did you configure it too, or just add it?
Loren
Rob,
> > Yes, this is normal. An absence of a policy record implies
> > a default policy, which is a neutral 'signs some mail'.
>
> Personally, I find it strange to call 'signs some mail' neutral if
> there's nothing that indicates that we might actually do 'sign some
> mail'. But I haven't read a
I added this and everything came back labled as SPAM
-- Original Message ---
From: John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: SpamAssassin Users
Sent: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:39:07 -0700
Subject: Botnet 0.8 Plugin is available (FINALLY!!!)
> Botnet 0.8 is up and available. It took me
John,
> Botnet 0.8 is up and available. It took me a while (things have been
> REALLY busy at work for the last 6 months), but it's there.
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/Botnet-0.8.tar
Thanks, very nice.
> What changed between 0.7 and 0.8:
It seems a patch by Daniel J McDonald was
Rob Sterenborg wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:38:24 +0200:
> Sorry, I, of course, have no explanation for that.
I didn't demand an explanation from you ;-) was just musing. But thanks
for the URL. That indeed clarifies that it got used specifically to avoid
clashes with real hostnames. Btw, it see
I don't mean to rain on the botnet plugin parade, but when I tried it, my
mail queue slowed to a crawl. Mail became backed up pretty quickly with
processing taking upwards of 10 minutes a message.
Is there something in the config that I missed or it this plugin only meant
for small installations?
* Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> John Rudd wrote on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:39:07 -0700:
>
> > http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/Botnet-0.8.tar
>
> Hi John, just checking out your plugin the first time. I notice that it
> just untars all files to the current location. It would be nice
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Rob Sterenborg wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:32:57 +0200:
>
>> Didn't look it up but this is not a hostname, is a TXT record so I
>> guess it's treated differently..
>
> Good explanation, but looking it up I see there *is* an A record
> (actually, two).
Sorry, I, of course, h
John Rudd wrote on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:39:07 -0700:
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/Botnet-0.8.tar
Hi John, just checking out your plugin the first time. I notice that it
just untars all files to the current location. It would be nice if you
could encapsulate it in a directory, so
Rob,
> > When the domainkey policy record for the domain in question says the
> > domain signs some of its email.
>
> Heheh.. Yeah, I guessed that much, but, we *don't* sign email. Not
> DK(IM) or anything else.
Yes, this is normal. An absence of a policy record implies
a default policy, which is
Rob Sterenborg wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:32:57 +0200:
> Didn't look it up but this is not a hostname, is a TXT record so I guess
> it's treated differently..
Good explanation, but looking it up I see there *is* an A record
(actually, two). This may be an error, though. It probably expliticely
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Kai Schaetzl wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:03:42 +0200:
>
>> _domainkey
>
> BTW, doesn't the use of an underscore in a hostname violate RFC?
Didn't look it up but this is not a hostname, is a TXT record so I guess
it's treated differently..
Grts,
Rob
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:03:42 +0200:
> _domainkey
BTW, doesn't the use of an underscore in a hostname violate RFC?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Rob Sterenborg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking around to see if I could find what
>>
>> DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME
>> Domain Keys: policy says domain signs some mails
>>
>> actually means, but I can't find it.
>>
>> When I send an email fromy work email address to my home email
Matt Kettler wrote on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:19:16 -0400:
> dig txt _domainkey.
doing a
host -t TXT _domainkey.example.com
should do the same, right?
I also started wondering why I see that on so many mails. Actually, it
seems I get the DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME on all mail that is not whitelisted in
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking around to see if I could find what
>
> DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME
> Domain Keys: policy says domain signs some mails
>
> actually means, but I can't find it.
>
> When I send an email fromy work email address to my home email server,
> this rule is hit for that
Hi,
I was looking around to see if I could find what
DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME
Domain Keys: policy says domain signs some mails
actually means, but I can't find it.
When I send an email fromy work email address to my home email server,
this rule is hit for that email, but I'm quite sure that we have n
28 matches
Mail list logo
