Re: Why do I get both URIBL_DBL_SPAM and URIBL_BLOCKED?

2014-06-05 Thread Axb
On 06/06/2014 08:33 AM, Dave Warren wrote: On 2014-06-05 21:48, zespri wrote: As I read it, it means that "non-forwarding dnsmasq" is simply nonsensical. What am I missing? Yeah... I don't believe dnsmasq would be a good choice, unbound or BIND would be better choices. or Powerdns-recursor

Re: Why do I get both URIBL_DBL_SPAM and URIBL_BLOCKED?

2014-06-05 Thread Dave Warren
On 2014-06-05 21:48, zespri wrote: As I read it, it means that "non-forwarding dnsmasq" is simply nonsensical. What am I missing? Yeah... I don't believe dnsmasq would be a good choice, unbound or BIND would be better choices. -- Dave Warren http://www.hireahit.com/ http://ca.linkedin.com/in

Re: Why do I get both URIBL_DBL_SPAM and URIBL_BLOCKED?

2014-06-05 Thread zespri
Thank you for this, this is most helpful. Yes, I read the link. On this related note, it appears that mentioning dnsmasq as a non-forwarding caching Nameserver on this page http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver is a mistake. From the dnsmasq documentation

Re: Why do I get both URIBL_DBL_SPAM and URIBL_BLOCKED?

2014-06-05 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 16:35 -0700, a pseudonymous Nabble user wrote: > Below is one example of an emails I'm getting. I substituted my domain for > "domain.com" in this example. > Can someone explain, why I have both URIBL_DBL_SPAM /and/ URIBL_BLOCKED in > the same message? Despite the URIBL prefi

Re: DMARC policy check with AskDNS posible?

2014-06-05 Thread Franck Martin
A couple of comments… If the policy=reject and the dmarc is fail, then spamassassin should not see the email because opendmarc would have already rejected it (if not it is due to local policy override, so spamassassin should not change that) So if you reject on dmarc=fail, this may due to p=qu

Re: SPAM from a registrar

2014-06-05 Thread Andreas Schulze
Tom Hendrikx: > but postfix has a feature that can check the MX and NS > records of the envelope sender or hostname of the connecting ip. I know and use that. > If these are all the same, you could block connections based on those. that's intersting, no idea how to com

Re: Sub-test only for first ip

2014-06-05 Thread RW
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:01:55 +0300 Nick I wrote: > Hi > > Can someone let me know which sub-test can i use to check only 1st > real ip addess (68.142.230.77) from this header against rbl dns > server? > Why would you want to? It appears to be the address of a Yahoo webmail server. In general s

Re: Domain Age

2014-06-05 Thread Axb
On 06/05/2014 03:22 PM, Andreas Schulze wrote: Hello, today we came up with the idea to look at the domain age. It may be a criteria for otherwise perfect messages. Is there something I could ask with a domainname and receive the age as answer? We've been there a few days ago See thread "S

Re: Domain Age

2014-06-05 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 6/5/2014 9:22 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote: today we came up with the idea to look at the domain age. It may be a criteria for otherwise perfect messages. Is there something I could ask with a domainname and receive the age as answer? Hi Andreas, I believe you should look at RCVD_IN_DOB whic

Re: Domain Age

2014-06-05 Thread Matthias Leisi
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Andreas Schulze wrote: > Is there something I could ask with a domainname and receive the age as > answer? http://support-intelligence.com/dob/ Which domain would you be interested in? MAIL FROM, From:, Body URL-domain, ...? -- Matthias

Domain Age

2014-06-05 Thread Andreas Schulze
Hello, today we came up with the idea to look at the domain age. It may be a criteria for otherwise perfect messages. Is there something I could ask with a domainname and receive the age as answer? Andreas

Re: Don't modify body - just add headers?

2014-06-05 Thread RW
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:26:22 -0500 Patrick Thomas wrote: > How would I use postfix to run it through SpamAssassin then procmail? > I don't want it to drop "spam", just deliver it to the spam folder. The point of checking from the MTA is to reject some or all spam instead accepting it. It's not th

Sub-test only for first ip

2014-06-05 Thread Nick I
Hi Can someone let me know which sub-test can i use to check only 1st real ip addess (68.142.230.77) from this header against rbl dns server? Received: from server (server [1.1.1.1])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))(No client certificate requested)by server2 (MTA)

Re: Don't modify body - just add headers?

2014-06-05 Thread Axb
On 06/05/2014 09:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 04.06.14 14:26, Patrick Thomas wrote: How would I use postfix to run it through SpamAssassin then procmail? I don't want it to drop "spam", just deliver it to the spam folder. I believe that googling for "postfix spamassassin" will give

Re: Don't modify body - just add headers?

2014-06-05 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 04.06.14 14:26, Patrick Thomas wrote: How would I use postfix to run it through SpamAssassin then procmail? I don't want it to drop "spam", just deliver it to the spam folder. I believe that googling for "postfix spamassassin" will give you enough of hints, if spamass-milter is not enough fo

Re: Viagra spam not caught

2014-06-05 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 6/4/2014 11:04 AM, Daniele Paoni wrote: I will try to retrain my bayes database. ... and run sa-update and reload your spamd. If you keep some of your spam and ham samples, re-train them properly. Those that misfired are more important. On 04.06.14 11:56, Bowie Bailey wrote: That message wo