On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, AJ Weber wrote:
Didn't find it, but I'll keep looking.
The thread subject is "Short body rules" on 11/25/2011
While searching, I noticed you had some updated chickenpox rules, but I
didn't see them in your sandbox (at least from the link I looked at).
They aren't update
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:52:29 -0800 (PST)
AJ Weber wrote:
> BTW: To expound upon my previous "guess" at matching short messages,
> what's wrong with:
> body MY_TOO_SHORT /^.{1,100}$/
>
> (Which I mean to check for a message where the length is < 100 chars)
Please don't top-post.
Body tests are ru
>>> Does spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1 | grep -i Resolver show the
>>> same error?
>>
>> Yes
>
> And if you temporarily move all your config files and run the same command,
> does
> the error go away?
Yikes, I'm reluctant to do this on a production machine. I have
only made config changes in
On 2012-01-06 21:31, email builder wrote:
Wow, really? Then why wouldn't RedHat or CentOS have a fixed updated
version in their repo? That seems egregious if what you say is indeed the
case.
RedHat (and CentOS, since their whole mission is to match RHEL
feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug)
On 1/6/2012 3:31 PM, email builder wrote:
Sure, but the point is that my spamassassin and per-Net-DNS (where the
error is happening?) are up to date from the CentOS repo so
shouldn't they work without an error when spamassassin restarts?
It isn't the job of the SA project to worry about s
>> Wow, really? Then why wouldn't RedHat or CentOS have a fixed updated
>> version in their repo? That seems egregious if what you say is indeed the
>> case.
>
> RedHat (and CentOS, since their whole mission is to match RHEL
> feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug) believes that their Enterprise
BTW: To expound upon my previous "guess" at matching short messages, what's
wrong with:
body MY_TOO_SHORT /^.{1,100}$/
(Which I mean to check for a message where the length is < 100 chars)
AJ Weber wrote:
>
> Didn't find it, but I'll keep looking. While searching, I noticed you had
> some upd
Didn't find it, but I'll keep looking. While searching, I noticed you had
some updated chickenpox rules, but I didn't see them in your sandbox (at
least from the link I looked at). I know this is a tangent, but could you
direct me to that rule-set? I have the one from the SA wiki, but it doesn'
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, AJ Weber wrote:
Is there a way to check if the body of an email is less than some threshold
(length of chars)?
Check the archives. This came up a month or two ago and I suggested a rule
set to detect a short body. Karsten then suggested a minor refinement.
You can't do i
Is there a way to check if the body of an email is less than some threshold
(length of chars)? I'm seeing some spam slip through because it's purposely
too short to hit a lot of rules, and too short for DCC and other networked
systems to get a "fingerprint" on.
For example:
Any body where len <
And if you temporarily move all your config files and run the same command,
does the error go away?
Regards,
KAM
>> Does spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1 | grep -i Resolver show the same
>error?
>
>Yes
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:12:09 +1300
Jason Haar wrote:
> Hi Henrik
>
> I tried that - didn't make a difference.
>
> In debug mode, it certainly made the IP address show up against
> X-Spam-Relays-External - but no RBL lookups against it occurred? That
> conflicts with the man page: "These IP addre
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:12:09PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> Hi Henrik
>
> I tried that - didn't make a difference.
>
> In debug mode, it certainly made the IP address show up against
> X-Spam-Relays-External - but no RBL lookups against it occurred? That
> conflicts with the man page: "These IP
Hi Henrik
I tried that - didn't make a difference.
In debug mode, it certainly made the IP address show up against
X-Spam-Relays-External - but no RBL lookups against it occurred? That
conflicts with the man page: "These IP addresses are virtually appended
into the Received: chain, so they are us
14 matches
Mail list logo
