Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Dispo
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>McDonald, Dan wrote:
>> From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>>
>>> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
>>> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>>
>> meta AE_PNG_ATT
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>
> Content-Type: image/png
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline
McDonald, Dan wrote:
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
Any idea how to tackle these? I have the DSC png rule in place but
obvious
Ned Slider wrote:
> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>
> Content-Type: image/png
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> here's the full message:
>
>
On 5-May-2009, at 19:08, Ned Slider wrote:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
Interesting. I'd think a no-name image would be a pretty strong spam
indicator.
Didn't it hit the no text rules?
I get:
Content analysis details: (4.3 points
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
>a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>Any idea how to tackle these? I have the DSC png rule in place but
>obviously that doesn't appl
Randy wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does
not contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a
high percentage of ima
ermille1979 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a problem with Spamassassin on my Qmail
>
Alex,
Can you explain why you think senders from agipro.it would be whitelisted?
The only whitelist option in the config you sent is commented out, so it
would have no effect.
Is the LOCAL_RCVD rule the one t
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
I can't speak for others, but this is one reason why I haven't given
my opinions about your proposed PSPF.
+1.
If this OT discussion is going to get discourteous, please take it
somewhere more appropriate.
+1
If it were to becom
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
I can't speak for others, but this is one reason why I haven't given my
opinions about your proposed PSPF.
+1.
If this OT discussion is going to get discourteous, please take it
somewhere more appropriate.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Micah Anderson wrote:
>> Eh? Last journal sync atime is Jan 1 1970?
>> Try running: sa-learn --sync
>
> Doesn't seem to change the 'last journal sync atime' from 0.
[...]
> I'm using a mysql DB and I've got the following set in my local.cf:
SQL Bayes DBs don't h
-Original Message-
From: John Thompson [mailto:johndthomp...@gmail.com]
Sent: dinsdag 5 mei 2009 22:25
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Errors during installation spamassasssin
> > Is this a bug in sa-update or a bug of the portssytem of freebsd???
>
> I saw the same proble
Charles Gregory wrote:
Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
work without changing the whole internet
LOL! Please stop discussing ideas?
To be fair, this is the SpamAssassin users list. The purpose if this
list isn't the discussion about the validity of ide
Karsten Bräckelmann writes:
>> This shows me that I have no idea what these magic things are :) Does
>> this tell you anything useful?
>
>> 0.000 06798614 0 non-token data: nspam
>> 0.000 0 19136753 0 non-token data: nham
>
> That's quite a lot of ham
Matus UHLAR - fantomas 5.5.'09, 8:55:
> > Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
> > be MORE difficult,
> more difficult than what?
I parsed it as him stating that getting users to use his proposed PSPF will be
more difficult than getting them to use athent
Adam Katz writes:
> Micah Anderson wrote:
>>> Also, to see how experienced your Bayes knowledge is - use "$ sa-leanrn
>>> --dump magic"
>>
>> This shows me that I have no idea what these magic things are :) Does
>> this tell you anything useful?
>>
>> 0.000 0 3 0 no
-Original Message-
From: Charles Gregory [mailto:cgreg...@hwcn.org]
Sent: dinsdag 5 mei 2009 22:40
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Personal SPF
> > Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for
> > users. Yes, apparently not for you.
>
> Everything
Footnote: Just had one of my users report the same problem on another
list. So my suspicion that this is on *my* server seems well-founded...
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
OT : Apologies if I miss any replies to my posts. But they are getting lost
in a pile of repeats
For s
OT : Apologies if I miss any replies to my posts. But they are getting
lost in a pile of repeats
For some reason I am getting many multiple copies of all the
posts from this mailing list. If the list admin is listening in,
would he/she be kind enough to check SMTP logs for connections to
'
On Tue, 5 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
> idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this way.
I did in the portion of the message
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for
users. Yes, apparently not for you.
Everything is "more work". Question is, would it be WORTH it?
Many people responded this thread saying it's bad idea.
To date, not coun
Jack Raats wrote:
I'm using the FreeBSD 7.2-RELESE. I've installed spamassassin using the
ports.
When running sa-update -D I get the following output (part of it)
[97306] dbg: diag: module installed: Net::SMTP, version 2.31
[97306] dbg: diag: module installed: Mail::SPF, version v2.006
[97306
LuKreme wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this
way.
I did in the portion of the message you snipped.
"If y
On 5-May-2009, at 08:39, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* y
Sean Leinart a écrit :
> I will check that as well. Thanks
> Postfix is the MTA
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html#internal
followup on the postfix-users list.
PS. Please do not top post. put your replies after the text you reply
to. This is valid on the postfix-users lists as
This has been said before, but there seems to still be some confusion.
In short -- you seem to think you're using amavis, and have an amavis
config file ... But instead you seem to be calling spamc/spamd, which
is completely different and unrelated.
If you want to use amavis, then stop using spa
Mail::SPF replaced Mail::SPF::Query. You should pick one or the
other, though Mail::SPF is preferred. See the INSTALL doc.
Also note, the module diag output is not a list of things that you
need to install, it's just a list that can help when debugging.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Jack Raa
2009/5/5 Karsten Bräckelmann
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:10 -0300, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> > People, I've followed your advice and I've noticed that spamc is
> > called from Postfix in /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> >
> > spamassassinunix- n n - - pipe
> >
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:10 -0300, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> People, I've followed your advice and I've noticed that spamc is
> called from Postfix in /etc/postfix/master.cf:
>
> spamassassinunix- n n - - pipe
> user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/spamc -d 127.0.
Welcome to English 101.
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their
internet connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every
time they connect to other network.
Poster is saying it is easier to setup port 587 in MUA instead of
configuring PSPF
Thi
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
>>> be MORE difficult,
>> more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more
>> difficult than implemen
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
>> terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
>> normal SPF.
On 05.05.09 10:39, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why*
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
People, I've followed your advice and I've noticed that spamc is called from
Postfix in /etc/postfix/master.cf:
spamassassinunix- n n - - pipe
user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/spamc -d 127.0.0.1 -e /usr/sbin/sendm
I will check that as well. Thanks
Postfix is the MTA
Sean Leinart
Network Systems Engineer
Raleigh, North Carolina
United States
slein...@fscarolina.com
> -Original Message-
> From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Sean Leinart
> Cc:
People, I've followed your advice and I've noticed that spamc is called from
Postfix in /etc/postfix/master.cf:
spamassassinunix- n n - - pipe
user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/spamc -d 127.0.0.1 -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f
${sender} ${recipient}
but this line is t
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> >>> This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
> >
> > On 05.05.09 09:25, Charles Gregory wrote:
> >> H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little
> >> check box in a
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Sean Leinart wrote:
We have several email distribution lists with addresses such as
a...@mydomain.com all-supp...@mydomain.com, etc. Currently these
email addresses are getting pounded with trash daily.
Is there a way, or a rule to allow this address to be valid internally
b
>> On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> > OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
>>> Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
>>> connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time they
>>> connect to other netw
On Tue, 5 May 2009, "Adam C?cile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
400x240 DSC\d+.png image spam again.
Please check the list archives for the thread with the subject "Almost no
score", t
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 12:17 -0300, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> Dear all, I need your help again about the spamc error.
[...]
> The spamc connects OK to port TCP/783 but I can't use the amavis tag
> features I used before. This situation shows me that the problem is
> between amavisd-new and spa
On 5/5/2009 5:17 PM, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
Dear all, I need your help again about the spamc error.
I tell you I'm not using procmail.
In my /etc/default/spamassassin I have this lines:
ENABLED=1
OPTIONS="--create-prefs --socketpath -U amavis --max-children 5
--helper-home-dir"
PIDFILE=
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
RW a écrit :
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there
Dear all, I need your help again about the spamc error.
I tell you I'm not using procmail.
In my /etc/default/spamassassin I have this lines:
ENABLED=1
OPTIONS="--create-prefs --socketpath -U amavis --max-children 5
--helper-home-dir"
PIDFILE="/var/run/spamd.pid"
If I define the listen IP and p
Thank you
Sean Leinart
Network Systems Engineer
Raleigh, North Carolina
United States
slein...@fscarolina.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Benny Pedersen [mailto:m...@junc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:10 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Blocking email wit
Charles Gregory wrote:
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does
not contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a
high percentage of image versus text
On Tue, May 5, 2009 16:56, Sean Leinart wrote:
> Is there a way, or a rule to allow this address to be valid internally
> but be rejected if the source originates from outside of our network.
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=fscarolina.com&submit=Go!
change ~all to -all
softfail to f
Greetings All,
We have several email distribution lists with addresses such as
a...@mydomain.com all-supp...@mydomain.com, etc. Currently these
email addresses are getting pounded with trash daily.
Is there a way, or a rule to allow this address to be valid internally
but be rejected if the sou
On Tue, May 5, 2009 16:30, vism...@email.it wrote:
> I am in troubles with spam filtering via SpamAssassin; I have many many
> many spam mails with the same sender and receiver, but I can't
> understand which rule of SpamAssassin is right to block this mails.
>
> Someone has an idea?
add spf to y
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
> OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>>> This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
>
> On 05.05.09 09:25, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little
>> check box in a mail client (O
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this
way. I said up front that I had a stro
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does not
contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a high
percentage of image versus text, but why no hits when 1
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote:
Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
be MORE difficult,
more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more
difficult than implementing PSPF based
metti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP
autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Conto Arancio, Zero spese, soldi sempre disponibili. Aprilo in due minuti!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=9041&d=20090505
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 06:52 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Jodizzz wrote:
> > SA:SPAM-DELETE:RC:0(xxx.xx.xxx.xxx):SA:1(1528.3/5.5)
OK, so there's the SA score as reported by qmail. Good. However, that
alone is quite useless -- we need the full, detailed Report of all rules
hit an
RW a écrit :
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it
On 05.05.09 06:59, ermille1979 wrote:
> I have a problem with Spamassassin on my Qmail
>
> r...@mail/etc/mail/spamassassin rpm -qa|grep -i spamas
> perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2-1
> spamassassin-3.0.2-1
> spamassassin-tools-3.0.2-1
Oh! that is way too old! I wonder if this still can catch any spam
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
On 05.05.09 09:25, Charles Gregory wrote:
> H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little
> check box in a mail client (Outlook Express or Thunderbird) that sa
Hi all,
I have a problem with Spamassassin on my Qmail
r...@mail/etc/mail/spamassassin rpm -qa|grep -i spamas
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2-1
spamassassin-3.0.2-1
spamassassin-tools-3.0.2-1
This is My file local.rc
###
#
#
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> > Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> > Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
> >
> > Is there any rules that can block it ? It se
On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little check
box in a mail client (Outlook Express or Thunderbird) that says "use SMTP
authentication", does it automatic
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Hello,
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
the same.
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
You may be flooded n
On Tue, May 5, 2009 10:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
>> work without changing the whole internet
> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
> idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *li
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:16 +0200, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
>
> Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
> the same.
>
Most stop these mes
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
>
> Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
> the same.
OCR module like FuzzyOCR should cat
On Tue, 05 May 2009 07:57:37 -0400
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I use spamassassin 3.2.5 and Dcc 1.3.103.
> > When I execute cat /path/to/spammail | dccproc, I have lines with X-DCC in
> > headers.
> > However, when I execute cat /path/to/spammail | spamc, I
On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
[...]
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time they co
Hello,
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
the same.
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I use spamassassin 3.2.5 and Dcc 1.3.103.
> When I execute cat /path/to/spammail | dccproc, I have lines with X-DCC in
> headers.
> However, when I execute cat /path/to/spammail | spamc, I do not have lives
> with X-DCC headers.
>
> Why I do not have DCC lin
Hello.
I use spamassassin 3.2.5 and Dcc 1.3.103.
When I execute cat /path/to/spammail | dccproc, I have lines with X-DCC in
headers.
However, when I execute cat /path/to/spammail | spamc, I do not have lives with
X-DCC headers.
Why I do not have DCC lines in headers, in this case?
See my loca
I'm using the FreeBSD 7.2-RELESE. I've installed spamassassin using the ports.
When running sa-update -D I get the following output (part of it)
[97306] dbg: diag: module installed: Net::SMTP, version 2.31
[97306] dbg: diag: module installed: Mail::SPF, version v2.006
[97306] dbg: diag: module not
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
work without changing the whole internet
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
--
Mi
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>> Why do you think it would be easier to get those of your users that
>> send through other servers to publish a personal SPF record with
>> correct information about the external IP address of the outgoing relay
>> they use than it would be to get th
74 matches
Mail list logo
