John Fleming wrote:
I hadn't paid attention for awhile, and now I'm noticing that
SA-Update exited with code 1 every time it ran (daily) for the last
several weeks at least that I've been paying attention again.
Normal? Is there a list of when updates have come out?
They come out whenever nee
thats a dynamic ip from telecomitalia. i'm getting lots of spam from
there but the ips are in no dynamic list. is there a more complete list
of dynamic hosts?
We are currently doing this:
# Telecomitalia. ISP with a big spam problem
# A rare exception found had a .it tld sender, so let's
Hi,
i have a very strange problem with spamassassin 3.2.3 running on
openSuse 10.3 Linux. For several hours I've been trying to convince
spamd to spawn the number of children set in the corresponding argument.
But it simply ignores it and always spawns its default number of two
children. It doesn
mouss wrote:
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008 19:52:46 SM wrote:
He was referring to the URL that is wrapped into two lines with the
quoted-printable encoding. It is parsed correctly.
so thats no error or invalid markup? ok well in this case... sorry
for the fals
> you need to show the raw body. http://ec=xz... is invalid and results
> in an error when I click on. even with quoted printable, it is still
> invalid because '=' must be followed by hex characters (0-9a-fA-F).
Dude, see the OP. :) He did provide the full, raw message.
This very snippet is
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 19:31 +0100, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > http://rafb.net/p/S95P6c12.html
Yes, this is a spam alright. The Message-Id alone tells so. See my rule
KB_RATWARE_MSGID in bug 5830 [1].
> second, i'd love to go and slap some ISPs a round a little for not even
> having
> an
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008 19:52:46 SM wrote:
He was referring to the URL that is wrapped into two lines with the
quoted-printable encoding. It is parsed correctly.
so thats no error or invalid markup? ok well in this case... sorry for the
false alert.
At 11:37 22-03-2008, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
een">http://ec=xzpmi.oldbuild.cn/?175217540350";>Das b
see the "="?
imo it should be takes as spam sign. no sane person pasts such urls unless
he/she intends to bypass url checks.
The sender's MUA formats and encodes the message. The URL may
On Saturday 22 March 2008 19:52:46 SM wrote:
> He was referring to the URL that is wrapped into two lines with the
> quoted-printable encoding. It is parsed correctly.
so thats no error or invalid markup? ok well in this case... sorry for the
false alert.
--
best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüße
At 11:27 22-03-2008, Justin Mason wrote:
what is the URL you think it's missing?
He was referring to the URL that is wrapped into two lines with the
quoted-printable encoding. It is parsed correctly.
Regards,
-sm
On Saturday 22 March 2008 19:27:15 Justin Mason wrote:
> works for me:
> Content analysis details: (14.3 points, 5.0 required)
wow that was fast. 5 minutes ago it was in none of those lists. now i get 14.8
points too.
> what is the URL you think it's missing?
that one:
> Contains an URL list
On Saturday 22 March 2008 19:10:03 Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> http://rafb.net/p/S95P6c12.html
i forgot two things:
thats a dynamic ip from telecomitalia. i'm getting lots of spam from there but
the ips are in no dynamic list. is there a more complete list of dynamic
hosts? i've seen sorbs d
Arvid Ephraim Picciani writes:
> Hi,
> seems that spammers are leaving encoding characters in the urls to make SA
> unable to parse it. my mailprogram (kmail currently) displays those urls
> _without_ the leftovers.
> http://rafb.net/p/S95P6c12.html
> i suggest taking this kind of obfuscation as
Hi,
seems that spammers are leaving encoding characters in the urls to make SA
unable to parse it. my mailprogram (kmail currently) displays those urls
_without_ the leftovers.
http://rafb.net/p/S95P6c12.html
i suggest taking this kind of obfuscation as a sign for spam (ie it should be
in the de
Arthur Dent wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:39:01PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 13/03/2008 5:15 PM, Arthur Dent wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:55PM -0400, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
OK, I didn't get any responses to the question I posted late yesterday
(hint, hint)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 06:41:26PM +0530, Tarak Ranjan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 12:28 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Henrik K writes:
> > > I updated my FreeMail plugin with a big list of domains
> > > (http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html).
> > >
> > > Try it out:
> > >
> > >
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 12:28 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> Henrik K writes:
> > I updated my FreeMail plugin with a big list of domains
> > (http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html).
> >
> > Try it out:
> >
> > http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
> > http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.cf
> >
> > Pretty
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:39:01PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 13/03/2008 5:15 PM, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:55PM -0400, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> >> OK, I didn't get any responses to the question I posted late yesterday
> >> (hint, hint), but I'll give it a try
Henrik K writes:
> I updated my FreeMail plugin with a big list of domains
> (http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html).
>
> Try it out:
>
> http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
> http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.cf
>
> Pretty good hit ratio here, especially when you add some extra scores like
> FREE
I hadn't paid attention for awhile, and now I'm noticing that SA-Update exited
with code 1 every time it ran (daily) for the last several weeks at least that
I've been paying attention again. Normal? Is there a list of when updates
have come out?
Thanks - John
Sn!per wrote:
Hi all,
Am using SA version 3.2.4 . So far working great.
I am comparing the headers on two of my mails. The first mail is NOT a spam,
and X-Spam-Status is like so:
No, score=2.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no
version=3.2.4
The second email is a s
21 matches
Mail list logo
