Anyone uses qmail here. I just recently setup qmail with qmail-scanner
and clamav and spamassin as scanner array. I just noticed in my
spamassassin log that even though the required hits in spamassassin is
5, it still allow those email which has greater value of 5. Below is
the logs of my spamassa
Burton Windle a écrit :
> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I can't think of a better list with
> more sharp email server admins.
>
> I've just taken a new job with a company that does some (legit, opt-in,
> with-working-remove-link, only sending to our paying customers) email
> marketing. I'm see
Michael Scheidell a écrit :
>> 3banatomy.co.kr
>
> Minor point, rfc's don't require an mx record an a record will satisfy the
> rfc's just fine. (and one of the major saas email anti-spam providers used
> to use cname records for all their clients.. Yes, they took them off, one at
> a time, as c
>># host mail.example.com
>>mail.example.com is an alias for hostname.example.com.
>>hostname.example.com has address 1.2.3.4
>
>
>Wrong. The MX record has to point to an A name, not a CNAME.
what?
MX record's data field is a domain name
That domain name owns one or more A records.
With mai
--On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:37 PM +0200 Sebastian Ries <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# host -t MX example.com
example.com mail is handled by 100 mail.example.com.
# host mail.example.com
mail.example.com is an alias for hostname.example.com.
hostname.example.com has address 1.2.3.4
W
At 15:01 22-10-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Maybe rfc's need to change.. There is no modern software that can't send to
a cnamed mx or mx'ed cname, whatever.
I doubt that it will be changed to accommodate that. It's not only a
matter of software. Such a change would have an impact on DNS.
At 13:42 22-10-2008, Burton Windle wrote:
Basically, we are seeing denied traffic on our firewall. The source
of the traffic is the mail servers we are sending to; it is coming
FROM their TCP/25, and going to some random high-level TCP port on
our sending host. If I didn't know better, I'd thin
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Tom Brown wrote:
I am getting loads of spam about various topics but a common theme is
the URL within the message and that is
http://X7zfqxF7.spaces.live.com/
That was discussed within the past week, check the mailing list archives.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I can't think of a
> better list with more sharp email server admins.
>
> I've just taken a new job with a company that does some
> (legit, opt-in, with-working-remove-link, only sending to
> our paying customers) email marketing. I'm seeing some
> very weird tr
> 3banatomy.co.kr
Minor point, rfc's don't require an mx record an a record will satisfy the
rfc's just fine. (and one of the major saas email anti-spam providers used
to use cname records for all their clients.. Yes, they took them off, one at
a time, as clients complianted that they were black
Dan McDonald wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:11:13 -0500:
> I'm not certain what you are talking about. SPF is very commonly
> deployed.
>
> http://www.openspf.org/Statistics
I don't see that you can deduce "is very commonly deployed" from that page.
> See especially http://utility.nokia.net/~lar
On Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:31 AM +0200 Kai Schaetzl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is far away from reality. What makes you think that XHTML mail would
be any better formed than HTML? I bet some makers of those many crap
HTML web mailers will just rename the Doctype if a client asks t
Hi
I am getting loads of spam about various topics but a common theme is
the URL within the message and that is
http://X7zfqxF7.spaces.live.com/
Does anyone know how i can write a rule to eliminate these?
spamassassin-3.2.5-1.el4.rf
thanks
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I can't think of a better list with more
sharp email server admins.
I've just taken a new job with a company that does some (legit, opt-in,
with-working-remove-link, only sending to our paying customers) email
marketing. I'm seeing some very weird traffic from
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
>>> On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
>>> Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do
>>> more. TX
i linted ever time and never got any errors, with or without the TextCat
plugin
thanks for the tips on the inactive languages
ill post the emails asap
Karsten � wrote:
>> # Set ok_locals to just en
>> ok_locales en
>>
>
> Please note that the comment above is wrong. It actually means
> #
Graham Murray wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:42:34 +0100:
> As does the 'normal' Bayes expiry mechanism of triggering (or
> attempting) an expire when the number of tokens reaches the threshold.
coming back to this old thread. Unfortunately, the expiry uses the same
algorithm for all Bayes storage
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:04 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> >>> On 21.10.08 19:31, mouss wrote:
> Search for RMX (Reverse Mail eXchanger).
> > On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
> >> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> >> doesn't hijac
Jeff Mincy schrieb:
>From: Heinrich Christian Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:43:55 +0200
>
>It learns all detected spam mails with a score of 8 (or higher) and not
>hitted by BAYES_70 (or higher).
>
> I would learn all spam messages including the one
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>>> On 21.10.08 19:31, mouss wrote:
Search for RMX (Reverse Mail eXchanger).
didn't go far for now.
>
>>> Yes, was kinda superseded by SPF,
>
> On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
>> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
Kai Schaetzl schrieb:
> Heinrich Christian Peters wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:43:55 +0200:
>
>> It learns all detected spam mails with a score of 8 (or higher) and not
>> hitted by BAYES_70 (or higher).
>
> Which means you miss all the spam that got hit by Bayes and scored that
> high and was
Heinrich Christian Peters wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:43:55 +0200:
> It learns all detected spam mails with a score of 8 (or higher) and not
> hitted by BAYES_70 (or higher).
Which means you miss all the spam that got hit by Bayes and scored that
high and was not autolearned. I think with a go
> > On 21.10.08 19:31, mouss wrote:
> >> Search for RMX (Reverse Mail eXchanger).
> >>
> >> didn't go far for now.
> > Yes, was kinda superseded by SPF,
On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 15:49 +0200, mouss wrote:
[...]
> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
SPF has it's own record type. Use "TYPE99" if your named doesn't
understand "SPF" yet.
The TXT reco
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>> Jorge Valdes a écrit :
>>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>>
> The point of MX is to point to hosts that receive mail, if you send mail
> to
> someone.
>
> The point of PTR is to provide host name when you receive mail from
> someone.
>>
Heinrich Christian Peters wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:30:13 +0200:
> Why? Won't Bayes get better, if I tell spamassassin more clearly, which
> mails are spam *and* which are not?
In general, yes. But we were talking about a specific context (MailScanner
quarantine and automated Bayes learning
From: Heinrich Christian Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:43:55 +0200
Kai Schaetzl schrieb:
> Just checked what I actually do, here it is:
>
> yesterday=`date -d "-1 day" +"%Y%m%d"`
> sa-learn --spam --progress /var/spool/MailScanner/quarantine/
>
Kai Schaetzl schrieb:
> Just checked what I actually do, here it is:
>
> yesterday=`date -d "-1 day" +"%Y%m%d"`
> sa-learn --spam --progress /var/spool/MailScanner/quarantine/
> ${yesterday}/spam/
I implemented a solution with sieve and sa-learn-cyrus:
> if allof (
> header :contains "X-hei
Kai Schaetzl schrieb:
> Benny Pedersen wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:04:42 +0200 (CEST):
>
>> will olso be good to learn ham in that script
>
> no, it won't
Why? Won't Bayes get better, if I tell spamassassin more clearly, which
mails are spam *and* which are not?
Heiner
> Jorge Valdes a écrit :
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >
> >>> The point of MX is to point to hosts that receive mail, if you send mail
> >>> to
> >>> someone.
> >>>
> >>> The point of PTR is to provide host name when you receive mail from
> >>> someone.
> >>>
> >>> The PTR has NOTHING to
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> This is far away from reality. What makes you think that XHTML mail would be
> any better formed than HTML? I bet some makers of those many crap HTML web
> mailers will just rename the Doctype if a client asks them about XHTML
> compatibil
Benny Pedersen wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:04:42 +0200 (CEST):
> will olso be good to learn ham in that script
no, it won't
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kenneth Porter wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:49:47 -0700:
> For legacy "un-XML", it's probably reasonable to let them get away with it.
> But once something declares itself XML, I think it's fair to ask for a bit
> more compliance, at the very least well-formedness.
This is far away from reality
Benny Pedersen wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:19:23 +0200 (CEST):
> 1: html mails is spam
It's not spam. If you don't like HTML mail (like me), contact the sender
off-list and ask him politely to stop that.
> 2: cc is spam olso
What problem do you have? That cc did not go to you. If you get a cc
Hi
Put in an ACL for local machines so that you don't run SA for these people.
Either that or if users are remote (ie you're an ISP) do authententication then
use that for the ACL check.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
> -Original Mess
>On śro, 2008-10-22 at 00:01 -0700, TN wrote:
>> It seems that almost everyone wants spamassasin before SMTP,
>
>Nh.
>
>> so we can afford to accept spam and filter it after SMTP.
>
>What are you using for local delivery? The most common solution, I think
>is to use procmail and just include a
Igor Chudov a écrit :
> example is here
>
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/spam004.txt
>
Content analysis details: (8.2 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.1 RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM RBL: NJ
On śro, 2008-10-22 at 00:01 -0700, TN wrote:
> It seems that almost everyone wants spamassasin before SMTP,
Nh.
> so we can afford to accept spam and filter it after SMTP.
What are you using for local delivery? The most common solution, I think
is to use procmail and just include a rule that
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> Stefan Jakobs wrote:
>> On Tuesday 21 October 2008 14:57, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In general it is recommended to not point a MX record to a CNAME, but
>>> that's just to reduce repetative querries. It is extraordinarily
>>> commonplace in the real world, and AFAI
Hi all,
It seems that almost everyone wants spamassasin before SMTP, but I need help in
setting it up after delivery.
At the moment, I am using Exim4.6x, with SA 3.1.7, and it's default setup is to
do the filtering at the ACL stage in Exim. We find this a bit tedious since
users sending email
40 matches
Mail list logo
