On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 15:51 +0200, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
> Axb schrieb:
> > your "like this" isn't very helpful - suggest you put a sample on pastebin
>
> In the E-Mail there was nothing other than that...
There are a lot of mail headers with potentially important information.
And there might
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 15:26 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> We use Spamassassin through Amavisd-new with Postfix. Our Postfix /
> Amavisd-new / Spamassassin setup has worked reliably for the past 18 months or
> so. Recently we made changes to Postfix to enable SPF policy checking and to
> have DKIM
James B. Byrne skrev den 2014-05-11 21:26:
We have this in /etc/amavisd.amavisd.conf
non default amavisd.conf here is it really used ?
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at harte-lyne.ca
Received: from inet08.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (inet08.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca [1
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 11:11 +0200, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
> Of course, it's not enough for a baysian test.
> The report is just:
>
> * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
> * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: Senderechner entspricht SPF-Datensatz
> * 1.2 RDNS_NONE Delivered
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 20:19 -0400, Alex wrote:
> [...] not sure if something's changed, or the rule never worked as I
> expected, but it's having problems, and I hoped someone could help.
Something changed indeed -- you broke the __RB_GT_200 sub-rule.
> body __RB_GT_200 /^.{201}/s
This is suppos
CentOS-6.5
Postfix-2.6.6
Amavisd-new-2.8.0
Spamassassin-3.3.1
OpenDKIM-2.9.0
pypolicyd-spf-1.2
We use Spamassassin through Amavisd-new with Postfix. Our Postfix /
Amavisd-new / Spamassassin setup has worked reliably for the past 18 months or
so. Recently we made changes to Postfix to enable SPF p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
If the message is supposed to get SA headers always, but they're not
there, your mail routing is borked or misconfigured. Please find all
related logging for this message from the moment it entered your mail
stack until the moment it was stored
Luca Bertoncello skrev den 2014-05-11 15:51:
http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru
In the E-Mail there was nothing other than that...
add that host to /etc/hosts so it resolves to 127.0.0.1 or even better
make a clamav signature for this host, or add it to squidguard,
solutions come from beeating the
Axb skrev den 2014-05-11 11:47:
http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru/search_bing.html?
bing search, bingo
your "like this" isn't very helpful - suggest you put a sample on
pastebin
url redirector
Luca Bertoncello skrev den 2014-05-11 11:11:
http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru/search_bing.html?iwjvyluwo=2277344&opjrep=9504
Could someone help me to write a rule to block these E-Mails?
sure:
meta SPF_FREEMAIL_RDNS (FREEMAIL_FROM && SPF_PASS && RDNS_NONE)
score it so it get over 5, but under 10
Axb schrieb:
> On 05/11/2014 11:11 AM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Since some days I receive a huge amount of E-Mail like this:
> >
> > Hey!
> > http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru/search_bing.html?iwjvyluwo=2277344&opjrep=9504
> >
> > Of course, it's not enough for a baysian test.
> > The re
On 05/11/2014 11:11 AM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
Hi!
Since some days I receive a huge amount of E-Mail like this:
Hey!
http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru/search_bing.html?iwjvyluwo=2277344&opjrep=9504
Of course, it's not enough for a baysian test.
The report is just:
* 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email
Hi!
Since some days I receive a huge amount of E-Mail like this:
Hey!
http://taxi-gruz.nichost.ru/search_bing.html?iwjvyluwo=2277344&opjrep=9504
Of course, it's not enough for a baysian test.
The report is just:
* 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider *
([a
13 matches
Mail list logo
