Hi,
I have a box running postfix and v3.2.5 with perl-5.8.8, and would
like to get SPF working. I can install the SPF-Query module, and it
works, but I'd like to get Mail::SPF::Server working:
[2616] dbg: diag: module not installed: Mail::SPF ('require' failed)
[2616] dbg: diag: module not instal
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
I'm using spamassassin for some weeks, and all is working fine. I just
have two questions:
1. While checking my logs, I find this string each time a mail is
filtered:
Sep 9 10:59:45 HOSTNAME spamd[3126]: spamd: handle_user unable to find
user: 'USER
Hello,
I'm using spamassassin for some weeks, and all is working fine. I just
have two questions:
1. While checking my logs, I find this string each time a mail is
filtered:
Sep 9 10:59:45 HOSTNAME spamd[3126]: spamd: handle_user unable to find
user: 'USERNAME'
Sep 9 10:59:45 HOSTNAME spamd[312
--
Re: Joseph Brennan:
Why doesn't sendmail reject it like it does here? (..) .. Domain name
required for sender address
I cannot afford rejecting all null senders as those could be
legitimate Delivery Status Notification messages.
What I am looking is a pattern for line:
MAIL FROM: <"do not
Jason,
> After a new OpenSuSE 11.3 mail server build (SpamAssassin 3.3.1, Postfix
> 2.7.1, invoking SpamAssassin using Amavisd-new) I'm seeing messages getting
> stuck in the Postfix queue with errors similar to this:
>
> host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 451 4.5.0 Error in processing, id=24421-02,
On 9.9.2010 17:53, Jason Hollenberg wrote:
> After a new OpenSuSE 11.3 mail server build (SpamAssassin 3.3.1, Postfix
> 2.7.1, invoking SpamAssassin using Amavisd-new) I'm seeing messages getting
> stuck in the Postfix queue with errors similar to this:
>
> host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 451 4.5.
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
The current rules are 39 months before the ham ages out.
If someone has done an empirical study that shows that the FP rate
deteriorates significantly after 39 months then that's fine. If the
figure has just been plucked out of the air, I don't see the sense in
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:03:22 -0500
Daniel McDonald wrote:
> On 9/9/10 7:46 AM, "RW" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Would it not be sensible to keep ham for as long as necessary, and
> > supplement the spam corpus with spamtraps?
>
> Ham is plentiful
Then relaxing the limit wont be needed, and it wont
After a new OpenSuSE 11.3 mail server build (SpamAssassin 3.3.1, Postfix
2.7.1, invoking SpamAssassin using Amavisd-new) I'm seeing messages getting
stuck in the Postfix queue with errors similar to this:
host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 451 4.5.0 Error in processing, id=24421-02,
spam_scan FAILED:
On 9/9/10 7:46 AM, "RW" wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
>
>>> What's the reason for the age limit?
>>
>> The nature of spam (and, to a lesser degree, ham, barring major
>> changes like the widespread adoption of HTML ema
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
> > What's the reason for the age limit?
>
> The nature of spam (and, to a lesser degree, ham, barring major
> changes like the widespread adoption of HTML email) changes over
> time. A rule that hit lots
11 matches
Mail list logo