>
> # apt-get install postfix-pcre
>
>
> Please move this to the postfix-users list. This is my last response here.
>
>
There is no need joining postfix-users, as the solutions is there already
for me. Thank You :)
snowweb wrote:
> Sorry, got mixed up. In /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
>
> use_bayes 1
>
> Is there anywhere else that I need to switch this on since it does not
> appear to be doing bayesian testing at all for any messages.
>
>
check your sa-learn --dump magic
SA won't activate bayes until i
snowweb wrote:
>
> Terry Carmen wrote:
>
>>> This is the result,
>>>
>>> X-Spam-Level:
>>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.4 required=4.7 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,
>>>
>>> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,
>>>
>>> MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCV
Sorry, got mixed up. In /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
use_bayes 1
Is there anywhere else that I need to switch this on since it does not
appear to be doing bayesian testing at all for any messages.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/bayes-not-active-although-enabled--tp2
Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> snowweb wrote:
>> USER_IN_WHITELIST
>
> That probably has something to do with it. And make sure you haven't
> whitelisted your own user because it is common for spammers to put the
> recipient's address in there as the "from" address, knowing that some
> portion of admin
snowweb wrote:
> USER_IN_WHITELIST
That probably has something to do with it. And make sure you haven't
whitelisted your own user because it is common for spammers to put the
recipient's address in there as the "from" address, knowing that some
portion of administrators will have whitelisted their
Terry Carmen wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the result,
>>
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.4 required=4.7 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,
>>
>> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,
>>
>> MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCV
On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:07 PM, snowweb wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.4 required=4.7 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20
,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,
MIME_HTML_ONLY
,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_PBL,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
,RCVD_IN
>
> This is the result,
>
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.4 required=4.7 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,
>
> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,
>
> MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_PBL,
>
> RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCV
This is the result,
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.4 required=4.7 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,
MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_PBL,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DU
In /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
bayes_auto_learn 1
But when I examine the message headers,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.0 required=4.7
tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_HTML_ONLY,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=no version=3.2.4
Is there anywhere else that I need to switch this on?
--
Vi
>From: Robert [mailto:list...@abbacomm.net]
>> There are no doubt lots of ways, but how about:
>>
>> egrep 'whitelist_from[^_]' local.cf | awk '{FS="@"; print $2"
>> TXT";}' | xargs dig | grep "v=spf1"
>what is this supposed to do?
select all of your whitelist_from entries, parse out the domain
> There are no doubt lots of ways, but how about:
>
> egrep 'whitelist_from[^_]' local.cf | awk '{FS="@"; print $2"
> TXT";}' | xargs dig | grep "v=spf1"
>
> John.
john,
what is this supposed to do?
- rh
On Sun, July 26, 2009 00:06, mouss wrote:
> Please move this to the postfix-users list. This is my last response here.
truly a lie :)
--
xpoint
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>> snip
did you see this:
>>>
>> This is really a postfix question. Follow up on the
>> postfix-users list if needed.
did you see that?
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Got the following error, when tried that. I'm using stock postfix on Debian
> Lenny w/ backports.
>
>
> postf
Looks like the pilz spammers have finally ditched the letters+numbers format.
I'm now using this rule:
body__MED_OB
/\bw{2,3}(?:[[:punct:][:space:]]{1,5}|[[:space:][:punct:]]{1,3}dot[[:space:][:punct:]]{1,3})[[:alnum:]]{2,10}(?:[[:punct:][:space:]]{1,5}|[[:space:][:punct:]]{1,3}dot[[
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 15:59 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Just checking through my Spam folder and I came across a message that
> contained this in the html:
Hey, it was classified spam. ;) And it's a phish anyway...
> http://www.example.net";>https://www.example.com
> How would you create a r
mouss wrote:
> Mike Cardwell a écrit :
>
>> Just checking through my Spam folder and I came across a message that
>> contained this in the html:
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet, there was no mention of this obvious forgery in the spamassassin
>> rules which caught the email.
>>
>> How would you create a r
On 25.07.09 01:25, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Actually there should be one or two more whitelists, so one can e.g., score
> -100 one's friends
> -10 one's schools
> -1 one's country
we still have def_whitelist_* with score of -15.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fa
Mike Cardwell a écrit :
> Just checking through my Spam folder and I came across a message that
> contained this in the html:
>
> href="http://www.kanotiser.se/images/logo.html";>https://www.paypal.co/us/webscr.php?cmd=_login-runcmd=_secure
>
>
>
> Yet, there was no mention of this obvious for
On Sat, July 25, 2009 16:59, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sat, July 25, 2009 16:19, twofers wrote:
>> Here is a full header to one of the emails. Maybe someone can tell me what
>> may be going on.
> http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=allradiohead.com&submit=Go!
ups i forgot to say non fqd
On Sat, July 25, 2009 16:19, twofers wrote:
> Here is a full header to one of the emails. Maybe someone can tell me what
> may be going on.
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=allradiohead.com&submit=Go!
do you see any softfails at all ?, or even fail ?, is spf_helo_pass seen in
spama
> Pietro a écrit :
>> In my installation, SA is called by Postfix. Any idea?
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>
> This is really a postfix question. Follow up on the
> postfix-users list if needed.
>
> you can skip filtering using header_checks. for example
> /^X-Spam-Status: Yes/ FILTER smtp:[127.0.0.
So I (think) I know that if SA is sent a message of a specific large size, SA
will not process it (Recent thread here) and I also (think) I know that if the
server is overyly busy, etc. that SA will not check the email. Now I may be
totally wrong about this, but my assumptions are based on feedb
Pietro a écrit :
> In my installation, SA is called by Postfix. Any idea? Thanks in advance.
>
This is really a postfix question. Follow up on the postfix-users list
if needed.
you can skip filtering using header_checks. for example
/^X-Spam-Status: Yes/ FILTER smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
assuming
25 matches
Mail list logo
