Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
practically useless
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I don't find it useless. It works qu
James Gray wrote:
[snip]
According to SORBS:
Netblock:202.147.75.0/26 (202.147.75.0-202.147.75.63)
Record Created:Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Record Updated:Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Additional Information:[MU] Dynamic/Generic IP/rDNS address, use
your ISPs mail server or ge
At 23:03 26-03-2008, Umar Murtaza wrote:
I have Spamassin 3.2.4 running on RedHat. It has been running fine,
until last night when all the emails started getting tagged as SPAMs.
Any idea where should i start looking for?
I am using:
sendmail-cf-8.13.1-3.2.el4
sendmail-8.13.1-3.2.el4
mailscan
Hi,
I have Spamassin 3.2.4 running on RedHat. It has been running fine, until last
night when all the emails started getting tagged as SPAMs.
Any idea where should i start looking for?
I am using:
sendmail-cf-8.13.1-3.2.el4
sendmail-8.13.1-3.2.el4
mailscanner-4.62.9-3
clamav-milter-0.92-1.el4
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Sorry for the OT. I've been trying to get in touch with whoever is in
charge of URIBL zonefile mirrors without success.
Is this thing on? Ping me offlist, por favor. I may have just been
pinging the wrong people.
you can ask on uribl list:
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
while you are at it, fix your DNS. your domain has been succesfully
submitted to rfci (boguxms):
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=gray.net.au
On 26.03.08 11:30, James Gray wrote:
Yes - that's one
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2008 3:18 p.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: SA-update error
>
> Using Spamassassin 3.1.8. I haven't updated SA in about six months.
Ran
> SA-update -D using the default channel
mouss wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
James Gray writes:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was
from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those
Sorry for the OT. I've been trying to get in touch with whoever is in
charge of URIBL zonefile mirrors without success.
Is this thing on? Ping me offlist, por favor. I may have just been
pinging the wrong people.
--
Jonathan
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 06:18:02PM -0800, Dennis Clark wrote:
> Using Spamassassin 3.1.8. I haven't updated SA in about six months. Ran
> SA-update -D using the default channel of updates.spamassassin.org, received
> error "new version is 585884, skipped channel".
>
> What exactly is going wro
That looks like it is the problem. I have sent BH an email asking them
about it. By any chance do you know the name of the watchdog program
that they run to keep an eye on the user processes? Or is it something
compiled into the kernel? I have seen where sometimes depending on who
you get a
Using Spamassassin 3.1.8. I haven't updated SA in about six months. Ran
SA-update -D using the default channel of updates.spamassassin.org, received
error "new version is 585884, skipped channel".
What exactly is going wrong here. Has the sa update default channel been
changed?
Am Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 schrieb Theo Van Dinter:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:24:49PM +0100, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > I do not understand the entry
> > >
> > > Mar 26 22:16:59 bokomoko spamd[10337]: bayes: cannot open bayes
> > > databases
Am Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 schrieb Theo Van Dinter:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:24:49PM +0100, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > I do not understand the entry
> >
> > Mar 26 22:16:59 bokomoko spamd[10337]: bayes: cannot open bayes
> > databases /home/rd/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: tie failed: Permission
> >
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:24:49PM +0100, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> I do not understand the entry
>
> Mar 26 22:16:59 bokomoko spamd[10337]: bayes: cannot open bayes
> databases /home/rd/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: tie failed: Permission denied
>
> because if I check the file systems permissions, th
Mike Jackson wrote:
Hi, I have an issue where much of my site's incoming
mail is being tagged as {SPAM?} when it's not.
You're using MailScanner. It's probably in there. Look if you're still
using ORDB. :-)
That was it, thanks.
--
Patrick Baldwin
Systems Administrator
Studsvik Scandpowe
> I guess the real problem comes from sites using appliances or commercial
> solutions that use DNSBLs without the admins really realizing what this
> means (some may even think the DNSBL is managed by the solution vendor).
We had a this issue using Merak Mail Server for Windows, which has a
c
Hello,
I am running spamassassin 3.2.3 on a Debian etch system (volatile package,
3.2.3-0.volatile1).
Unfortunately bayes filtering works quite unreliably and in /var/log/mail.log
I get messages like
Mar 26 22:16:59 bokomoko spamd[10337]: spamd: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 6
Skip writes:
> What do you know? I got permission from my web and email hosting
> company (BlueHost) to run my own spamd process. Cool! Now I can have a
> lot more control over the processing of my incoming mail, and I have
> access to the logs! Well, after starting spamd, I was surprised af
Hi Marianne,
At 10:33 26-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote:
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the X-Spam-Level
should appear in each message, regardless of it's spam or not. But the
only header I see is X-Spam-C
On Wed, March 26, 2008 09:24, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> | msa_networks192.168.0.0/16
spamassassin 2>&1 -D spf -t /tmp/msg > /tmp/msg.spf.debug
post the debug file
/tmp/msg is a email where it happends
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
By the way, this is version 3.2.4.
Skip wrote:
What do you know? I got permission from my web and email hosting
company (BlueHost) to run my own spamd process. Cool! Now I can have
a lot more control over the processing of my incoming mail, and I have
access to the logs! Well, after startin
What do you know? I got permission from my web and email hosting
company (BlueHost) to run my own spamd process. Cool! Now I can have a
lot more control over the processing of my incoming mail, and I have
access to the logs! Well, after starting spamd, I was surprised after a
couple of minut
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Patrick Baldwin wrote:
Hi, I have an issue where much of my site's incoming
mail is being tagged as {SPAM?} when it's not.
I'm looking to figure out where this {$SPAM} tag is coming
from.
Please post the full message headers from a false positive so that we can
get an id
Hi, I have an issue where much of my site's incoming
mail is being tagged as {SPAM?} when it's not.
You're using MailScanner. It's probably in there. Look if you're still
using ORDB. :-)
Hi, I have an issue where much of my site's incoming
mail is being tagged as {SPAM?} when it's not.
The mail server here is Sendmail 8.12.5 on SunOS 5.8,
and it's happening with a variety of mail clients.
I'm looking to figure out where this {$SPAM} tag is coming
from. I've gone through the docs
Hi sm,
The startup parameters may be different. Verify what
"spamass_milter_flags" settings used in rc.conf to start the milter.
I'm in doubt we mean the same thing.
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the
sought or no sought, I had the same problem and had
to back down to: re2c 0.12.3
Guess that's why re2c is at 0 Major Release number.
tkalfaoglu wrote:
When compiling the rules, I get:
sa-compile
[10524] info: generic: base extraction starting. this can take a while...
[10524] info: generic:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nws.charlie wrote:
> > I guess I'm one of the mail admin wannabe's... not by choice, but by
> > inheritance. It was turned over to me with almost zero training or
> > experience. :(
> > I found the initial posts clear, and had
trying to install SA on a Mac OS X server 10.3.9
I installed all the prerequisites, had trouble with Net::DNS had to force
install an older version to get it to work.
I also installed most of the optional prerequisites, minus IO::Socket::SSL
Encode::Detect
I am installing the latest version of
Hi all,
as I stated in my previous message, I have a problem with certain messages
not getting any URIDNSBL-hits, despite containing listed URL:s. The most
interesting part is that an older (SA 3.2.0) box seems to catch them
perfectly,
when the newer (first 3.2.3, now 3.2.4) don't seem to find a
nws.charlie wrote:
I guess I'm one of the mail admin wannabe's... not by choice, but by
inheritance. It was turned over to me with almost zero training or
experience. :(
I found the initial posts clear, and had to wonder at some of the replies
myself! Just wanted to say thanks for posting the a
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 16:44 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>>
>> util_rb_2tld by.ru
>> util_rb_2tld tripod.com
>
> So, the man page is wrong?
> [luser sa ~]$ man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
> /util_rb_2tld
> [...]
>util_rb_2tld 2tld-1.tld 2tld-2.tld ...
No,
Good day!
Spamd current args: "-L -c -v -u vpopmail"
Is there any reason to spamassassin do not create bayes_seen and
bayes_toks files (per-user configuration with vpopmail) if I remove
the "-L" option from spamd args?
And I had the same problem described here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, John Rudd wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A postmaster who doesn't check their logs in any f
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Our president was unable to communicate with one of her colleagues
> After reviewing the logs , I saw her messages were hitting the
> backhair rule What exactly is it ?
The backhair rules look for words being broken up by invisible html tags.
http://wiki.apac
Hi all,
Our president was unable to communicate with one of her colleagues
After reviewing the logs , I saw her messages were hitting the backhair rule
What exactly is it ?
tia
j
tkalfaoglu wrote:
Hi. I'm using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# re2c -v
re2c 0.13.3
To see what would happen, I changed the
fatal("Token limit exceed")
with
puts("Token limit exceeded")
and it put out two of these warnings and proceeded to compile them fine.
Then I did a lint, and tha
> >
> > Why? Can you remove them from the SORBS_DUL? No, then it's not
> really
> > relevant then is it ;)
>
> I was trying to help you find the real problem. If you don't want
help,
> stop
> bitching.
>
> I have seen more requests here to stop using some blacklists because
of
> the
> requestor
I guess I'm one of the mail admin wannabe's... not by choice, but by
inheritance. It was turned over to me with almost zero training or
experience. :(
I found the initial posts clear, and had to wonder at some of the replies
myself! Just wanted to say thanks for posting the answer before I posted
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Patrick Sherrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: SA-UPDATE How often new updates?
Patrick Sherrill wrote:
Is there any reason not to put the updates in /usr/share/spamassas
Justin Mason wrote:
James Gray writes:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those domains poin
John Rudd wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I think you're mistaken. Generating all hits does not penalize a
"good" postmaster, because no good postmaster will be using an RBL
that's been dead for over a year.
That's only specific to this case. I'm talking about from day 1 of
the RBL going dark.
Hi. I'm using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# re2c -v
re2c 0.13.3
To see what would happen, I changed the
fatal("Token limit exceed")
with
puts("Token limit exceeded")
and it put out two of these warnings and proceeded to compile them fine.
Then I did a lint, and that worked, so I just
tkalfaoglu writes:
>
> When compiling the rules, I get:
> sa-compile
> [10524] info: generic: base extraction starting. this can take a while...
> [10524] info: generic: extracting from rules of type body_0
> 100%
> [===
James Gray writes:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
> > Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
> >
> >From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Now you are using:
> >
> >From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > BOTH of those domains p
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
> > while you are at it, fix your DNS. your domain has been succesfully
> > submitted to rfci (boguxms):
> > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=gray.net.au
On 26.03.08 11:30, James Gray wrote:
> Yes - that's one of my personal dom
When compiling the rules, I get:
sa-compile
[10524] info: generic: base extraction starting. this can take a while...
[10524] info: generic: extracting from rules of type body_0
100%
[===]
5725.66 rules/sec 00m00s
> >On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
> >>Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> >>SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
> >>practically useless
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >I don't find it useless. It works quite well
On 26
"Benny Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a problem that mails from internal (private) IPs generate
SPF_FAIL hits. E.g. my configuration is
| internal_networks 62.153.82.30
| internal_networks 192.168.0.0/16
| trusted_networks62.153.82.30
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> A postmaster who doesn't check their logs in any fashion deserves
> >>> whatever
51 matches
Mail list logo
