Matt Kettler wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:51 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps Verizon is screwing up their DNS?
Ahh, yes they are:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1227
Hrm.
As a troubleshooting hack for this increasingly-common "feature",
perhaps a URIBL/
He is obviously a target, but some of this is very obvious, no? With
subject like 'Jennifer Garner showing tits and booty in the shower
fbeqxunqpwpjauxekoyx' and body containing...
www(dot)prnceleb(dot)com now," Malfoy went on. of metal, and
tnlffifuubqrnvrrtneekyntauypuqlecgwjaihf
Is this some
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:16 -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> I put extreme scores against emails from TW as we don't do business with
> anyone from there. If it wasn't for that, this would have made it
> through my system as well. I am really surprised bayes scored a 0 as it
> did for the original
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start trying
to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this message and tell
me if your getting a score above 5.0?
http://esmtp.webtent.ne
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:51 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps Verizon is screwing up their DNS?
Ahh, yes they are:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1227
Hrm.
As a troubleshooting hack for this increasingly-common "feature",
perhaps a URIBL/DNSBL rule could be
Can I get some tests now on my properly formatted file by anyone to see
if my scoring should be blocking this message? Sorry for the previously
posted poorly formatted files...and thanks for the help!
http://esmtp.webtent.net/test2.txt
Well, my results probably aren't hugely representative, but
-Original Message-
From: James E. Pratt
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:34 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] MD tries to open
/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs(was Re: mimedefang-multiplexor and
bayes_path)
> Kelson wrote:
> Since upgrading fro
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:05 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> There is still something wrong with the message you pasted, and possibly
> with how you are runing it into SA to test:
>
> Received: from n6c.bullet.mail.tp2.yahoo.com (n6c.bullet.mail.tp2.yahoo.com
> [203.188.202.136])
> \x09by esmtp.ky.
There is still something wrong with the message you pasted, and possibly
with how you are runing it into SA to test:
Received: from n6c.bullet.mail.tp2.yahoo.com (n6c.bullet.mail.tp2.yahoo.com
[203.188.202.136])
\x09by esmtp.ky.webtent.net (WebTent ESMTP Postfix Internet Mail Gateway)
with SMT
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 20:22 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start trying
> > to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this message and tell
> > me if your gett
*PLEASE DISCARD THE EARLIER MESSAGE. SORRY.*
On Jan 29, 2008 4:36 AM, Randal, Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes,
>
> That should be fine.
>
> Don't forget to run sa-update after installing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
I am very new at this. I have read the FAQ which stated that updates will
be wri
On Jan 29, 2008 5:15 AM, Bubuk Gabrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 4:36 AM, Randal, Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes,
> >
> > That should be fine.
> >
> > Don't forget to run sa-update after installing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lib]# /usr/bin/sa-update --nogpg --channel
saupdates.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:22:59 -0500
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start
> > trying to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this
> > message and
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start trying
> to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this message and tell
> me if your getting a score above 5.0?
>
> http://esmtp.webtent.net/test.txt
>
>
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:51:03 -0500
Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start
> trying to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this message
> and tell me if your getting a score above 5.0?
>
> http://esmtp.webtent.net/
I have some users getting slammed with this spam. Before I start trying
to figure out how to intercept, can someone test this message and tell
me if your getting a score above 5.0?
http://esmtp.webtent.net/test.txt
I'm getting 4.4 on this particular one, but others less. My bayes still
insists on
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:25 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:51 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Perhaps Verizon is screwing up their DNS?
> >
> > Ahh, yes they are:
> >
> > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1227
>
> Hrm.
>
> As a troubleshooting hack for this increasingly-
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:51 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Perhaps Verizon is screwing up their DNS?
>
> Ahh, yes they are:
>
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1227
Hrm.
As a troubleshooting hack for this increasingly-common "feature",
perhaps a URIBL/DNSBL rule could be defined that checks
David Zinder wrote:
Thank you for the response and suggestions.
Yes - lists.surbl.org - I was using the link Contacts->mailing lists
from www.surbl.org
If I understand the request for more info... It seems to get caught by
all the lists. Here is an example from an email this morning. I'm not
Kris, thanks for the help. It looks to me like the problem may lie in
the way MIMEDefang 2.63 is interacting with SpamAssassin. When I run
spamassassin -D on a message that causes hits on the SpamHaus tests, it
scores correctly. Time to pester the MIMEDefang developers, maybe.
Karl
Kris De
Dear list members,
I have recently upgraded to RHEL5.1 and I am having all sorts of issues with
spamassassin (mostly its "locker") and selinux, apparently.
When I disable selinux (setenforce 0), everything seems to work fine.
My spamassassin is invoked through procmail and my procmailrc looks a
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> This looks fishy. Your problem doesn't seem to be specific to SURBL. All
> URIBL tests are hitting.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OpenDnsAndUribls
?
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
You will have good luck and overcome ma
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 11:34 -0500, David Zinder wrote:
> If I understand the request for more info... It seems to get caught by
> all the lists. Here is an example from an email this morning. I'm not
> sure how to munge, but I think this is what you requested.
>
> Content analysis details: (5
Thank you for the response and suggestions.
Yes - lists.surbl.org - I was using the link Contacts->mailing lists
from www.surbl.org
If I understand the request for more info... It seems to get caught by
all the lists. Here is an example from an email this morning. I'm not
sure how to munge,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:50:32AM -0600, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> Probably not. If I understand correctly, you are calling the
> stand-alone spamassassin from procmail. At that point, SA is running
> as a mere mortal, which never can log to someplace like /var/log.
Just to note, you don't need t
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:41:06AM -0500, Jason Antman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a student at Rutgers University. I've been running SA on my own
> mailserver (handling 3 users) for a few years now. I recently came into
> some new hardware, and replaced the old mailserver with a new one
> running Solari
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 17:19 -0500, David Zinder wrote:
> I think my problem is related to surbl.org, but I can't figure out how
> to reach them. list.surbl.org times out, and has for several weeks.
>
> I had been using Spamassassin 3.1.5 under RHEL 3. Works great, until Jan
> 1, 2008. I started
Note: I fixed your subject line to try to draw the attention of the
right people. Generic subject lines tend to get overlooked by folks with
specific interests, since many just skim the subject lines.
David Zinder wrote:
I think my problem is related to surbl.org, but I can't figure out how
to
On Jan 29, 2008 4:36 AM, Randal, Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes,
>
> That should be fine.
>
> Don't forget to run sa-update after installing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
> --
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK
Thank you Phil.
--
Bubuk
Yes,
That should be fine.
Don't forget to run sa-update after installing.
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Bubuk Gabrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 January 2008 12:18
> To: users@spamassassin.apach
I installed 3.2.3 from the Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.4.tar.bz2 tarball.
Would it be okay to download Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.4.tar.bz2 , install
it and the new version will overwrite the 3.2.3 version ? Please
advise. TIA.
--
roger
I am very new to SpamAssassin and Simscan , both of which are installed on a
server by a previous administer. I want simscan to reject spam mail per domain
basis. I tried to modify simcontrol file and ran simscanmk, but it ended up in
rejecting even normal mails to some users. I had to revert
I think my problem is related to surbl.org, but I can't figure out how
to reach them. list.surbl.org times out, and has for several weeks.
I had been using Spamassassin 3.1.5 under RHEL 3. Works great, until Jan
1, 2008. I started getting false positives from surbl. These are emails
I have rec
I've been using SpamBayes for Outlook on Windows for 3 years and have a
well-trained configuration of spam and ham. This is stored by default in a
file called default_bayes_database.db
I've enabled SpamAssassin on my shared hosting service.
Is there a method of importing the SpamBayes configurat
Hi,
I am very new to SpamAssassin and Simscan , both of which are installed on a
server by a previous administer. I want simscan to reject spam mail per domain
basis. I tried to modify simcontrol file and ran simscanmk, but it ended up in
rejecting even normal mails to some users. I had to re
- "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just had this message get through :-
>
>
> and it only scored 5.6. These are the rules it hit :-
>
> 1.23 ADVANCE_FEE_2
> 0.00 BAYES_50
> 0.72 SARE_URGBIZ Contains urgent matter
> -0.00 SPF_P
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:10:39PM -0600, Matt wrote:
> > score SPF_FAIL 10
> > score SPF_SOFTFAIL 5
> > score SPF_NEUTRAL 2
On 28.01.08 17:28, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> If you wanted to give a small positive score for these, that might not be
> terrible. Anything over 1 is asking for trouble IM
37 matches
Mail list logo
