RW googlemail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:00:03 + (UTC)
> Ray misinformation.org> wrote:
> > * How do I determine what the current SA config is?
>
> The locations where spamassassin looks for configuration are listed in
> the main manpage.
I managed to find the config directory on
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting "your ISP". I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
complain back to.
> Fix your own domain's over-zealous
> > if spamc can't connect spamd for any reason, it will use
> > safe-fallback - pass mail unchecked. If you want to avoid
> > this behaviour and cause a temporary failure, use the -x
> > switch for spamc. Note that it also disables conectins
> > multiple hosts if spamd is unreachable.
On 20.0
Hi
I have a message in hand that is triggering false positives based on the
ratware rules in 3.2.4.
The specific headers are:
Message-ID:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838
Specifically, it seems that the X-Mailer header matches
__OUTLOOK_DOLLARS_MUA, and the Message-ID matches __H
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
>> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
>>
>>
>
> probably a rule that considers "vms173007pub.verizon.net" as a dynamic
> name...
>
No, rejecting anything l
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:30 +0100
mouss wrote:
> $ host 88.102.6.114
> 114.6.102.88.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer 114.6.broadband7.iol.cz.
>
> Are
> - iol.cz
> - telenet.cz
> - hotelulipy.cz
>
> the same organisation?
>
> if not, this is direct to MX junk.
>
> BTW. which (legitimate and n
>
> if spamc can't connect spamd for any reason, it will use
> safe-fallback - pass mail unchecked. If you want to avoid
> this behaviour and cause a temporary failure, use the -x
> switch for spamc. Note that it also disables conectins
> multiple hosts if spamd is unreachable.
> --
> Matus
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:01 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and
the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too
quickly for th
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
>
probably a rule that considers "vms173007pub.verizon.net" as a dynamic
name...
> Fix your own domain's over-zealous behaviors first.
>
Michael Scheidell a écrit :
> wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available in
> every mta since the early 90's...
> looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection.
>
- if their "spam blocker" is "linked" in the MTA or is a firewall, then
this has been
Claudia Burman a écrit :
> Hi,
> I'm using spamassassin called from amavisd-new and it's eating my server.
make sure you're not using huge rulesets.
> Amavisd-new first calls KAV Antivirus (desktop version).
> I've been told that I could achieve better perfomance by using spamd
> only, and that i
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
>>> problem - invalid HELO.
>>>
>>> * 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
>>> * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
Fix your own domain's over-zealous behaviors first.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>>> I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 j
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:01 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> > Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and
> > the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too
> > quickly for the patent off
Michael Scheidell wrote:
wonder why this is patentable?
Loads of things are patentable in the meaning that someone
manages to get a patent. That doesn't mean the patent can
witstand a challenge.
You never know for sure wether a patent (or a trademark) is fully
valid until it is is dispute
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and
> the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too
> quickly for the patent office and/or the patent laws to keep up. Another
> example is a U.S
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:24 PM
wonder why this is patentable?
Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and
the patent office hasn't a clue. Technolog
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:24 PM
>
> wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available
> in
> every mta since the early 90's...
> looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accep
wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available in
every mta since the early 90's...
looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7490128.html
United States Patent 7490128
Abstract:
The spam blocker monitors the SMT
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:11:42 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 20.02.09 08:56, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Why is a bogous HELO being generated in the first place? i.e.: why
> > is an address literal used, but not the correct address literal?
>
> I guess this happenns for hosts behing NAT, th
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:00:03 + (UTC)
Ray wrote:
> However, SA currently appears to be making spam
> judgement and to be bayes autolearning. (A reasonable default setup
> from the hosting provider.)
>
> * How do I determine what the current SA config is?
The locations where spamassassin loo
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
> > problem - invalid HELO.
> >
> > * 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
> > * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
> >
>
vbounce does an increasable job of blocking those pesky backscatters
from networks that do not validate their valid users on the 'bastion '
email server or proxy (and those who still insist on bouncing forged
viruses, or spammers who create phoney email 'bounces')
one of its strengths is also
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
> problem - invalid HELO.
>
> * 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
> * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
>
> Re
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin called from amavisd-new and it's eating my server.
Amavisd-new first calls KAV Antivirus (desktop version).
I've been told that I could achieve better perfomance by using spamd
only, and that it can call KAV by using a plugin.
Is that true? If it is, where can I get s
From: Monky
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Hello,
I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spama
Hello,
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Received: from 88.102.6.114 (67.kcity.telenet.c
On 20.02.09 03:31, Monky wrote:
> I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
> and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
> of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spamassassin decides
> that it is ham but because the
Monky wrote:
> Hello,
> I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
> and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
> of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spamassassin decides
> that it is ham but because the email nev
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 03:31 -0800, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> Hello,
> I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
> and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
> of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spamassas
On Friday 20 February 2009, Monky wrote:
>Hello,
>I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
>and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
>of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spamassassin decides
>that it is ham bu
Hello,
I am running the Spamd Daemon version 3.2.5 on my Linux web and mail server
and in general it works well. From time to time (somewhere in between 1-10%
of all emails) spam passes the filter - but not because spamassassin decides
that it is ham but because the email never gets processed by s
32 matches
Mail list logo
