Am 07.10.2014 um 02:10 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
P.S.:
it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i
refered implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear
that the [SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
P.S.:
it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i refered
implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear that the
[SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list as LuKreme repeatly
pretends instead just
Am 07.10.2014 um 01:48 schrieb David Jones:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SP
Am 07.10.2014 um 01:38 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK
to me
You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
> > On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
> >>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
> >>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used
>
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
of a content filte
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to
After reading your reply, I re-examined the message and found the case was
an incorrect Content-Type:
~~~
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250;
name="pdfname.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="pdfname.pdf"
~~~
So it was scanning the base64
On 10/06/2014 09:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.10.2014 um 21:44 schrieb Axb:
as SA update will take quite long till it publishes this:
uri AXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD
/\/\/images\/jdownloads\/screenshots\/muhmademad\.png/
describeAXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMADdildo_du_jour
score
On 10/6/2014 2:50 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just to give some answers. This issue should further be handled
off-list.
Thanks for your $0.02. I hate being accused of spamming...
Am 06.10.2014 um 21:44 schrieb Axb:
as SA update will take quite long till it publishes this:
uri AXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD
/\/\/images\/jdownloads\/screenshots\/muhmademad\.png/
describeAXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMADdildo_du_jour
scoreAXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD5.0
bewa
as SA update will take quite long till it publishes this:
uri AXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD
/\/\/images\/jdownloads\/screenshots\/muhmademad\.png/
describeAXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD dildo_du_jour
score AXB_URI_HCKD_MUHMADEMAD 5.0
beware of MUA line break !!!
enjoy
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:28:02 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Unless the message's MIME-structure is severely broken, these tokens
> appear somewhere other than a base64 encoded attachment.
Agreed, and a Qmail bounce message is a prime example of a message
whose MIME structure is "severely bro
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 09:03 -0400, jdime abuse wrote:
> I have been seeing some issues with bayes detection from base64
> strings within attachments causing false positives.
>
> Example:
> Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869] dbg: bayes: token 'H4f' => 0.71186828264
> Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869] dbg: b
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 13:36 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 1:23 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > On 10/6/2014 1:11 PM, Jason Goldberg wrote:
> > > How to i get removed from this stupid list.
> > >
> > > I love begin spammed by a list about spam which i did not signup for.
> >
> > Ema
On 10/6/2014 1:47 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:08:49 +0200,
Axb wrote:
Axb> What's wrong with running rbldnsd? It's the tool all BLs use for
Axb> mirroring BL data. It's so stable and simple to use nothing can
Axb> beat it.
>From the website:
There is no config file, rbld
Am 06.10.2014 um 19:47 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:08:49 +0200,
Axb wrote:
Axb> What's wrong with running rbldnsd? It's the tool all BLs use for
Axb> mirroring BL data. It's so stable and simple to use nothing can
Axb> beat it.
From the website:
There is no config file,
On 10/06/2014 07:47 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:08:49 +0200,
Axb wrote:
Axb> What's wrong with running rbldnsd? It's the tool all BLs use for
Axb> mirroring BL data. It's so stable and simple to use nothing can
Axb> beat it.
From the website:
There is no config file, rb
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:08:49 +0200,
Axb wrote:
Axb> What's wrong with running rbldnsd? It's the tool all BLs use for
Axb> mirroring BL data. It's so stable and simple to use nothing can
Axb> beat it.
From the website:
> There is no config file, rbldnsd accepts all configuration in command line
On October 6, 2014 7:28:02 PM David Jones wrote:
> host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net
> Host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> "web tools"
http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/google.com.html
http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/goo.gl.html
Yes it
On 10/6/2014 1:23 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/6/2014 1:11 PM, Jason Goldberg wrote:
How to i get removed from this stupid list.
I love begin spammed by a list about spam which i did not signup for.
Email users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org and the system will mail you
instructions.
If
Am 06.10.2014 um 19:22 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On October 6, 2014 6:39:21 PM Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hello, has anyone else experienced an HUGE uptick in the number of
rejected legitimate emails following an sa-update run over this past
And spammassin only tags mail, it does not reject, so s
> From: Axb
> On 10/06/2014 07:01 PM, David Jones wrote:
> > Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
> >> >
> >> >
> host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net
> Host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> "web tools"
http:/
On October 6, 2014 6:39:21 PM Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hello, has anyone else experienced an HUGE uptick in the number of
rejected legitimate emails following an sa-update run over this past
And spammassin only tags mail, it does not reject, so stop saying it an sa
issue when its not
On 10/6/2014 1:11 PM, Jason Goldberg wrote:
How to i get removed from this stupid list.
I love begin spammed by a list about spam which i did not signup for.
Email users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org and the system will mail you
instructions.
If you did not sign up for the list, that is very
On October 6, 2014 6:04:54 PM Alex wrote:
Okay, I think I understand. You're saying that, if not ignored,
postfix will strip these headers, making them inaccessible to
spamassassin for scoring. Correct?
No ignore means dont pass to mailbox, think like postfix just lie to
content filters that
On 10/06/2014 07:01 PM, David Jones wrote:
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
>
>
host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net
Host google.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
"web tools"
On 10/6/2014 1:00 PM, Eric Cunningham wrote:
No, I did not see anything about an RHS_URIBL_DOB issue. Could you,
as you say, offer some data points on this?
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/URIBL-RHS-DOB-high-hits-td112138.html
And being discussed on users list right now...
Regards,
> On 10/06/2014 01:55 PM, David Jones wrote:
> > Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
> >
> >
> > Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.?
> >
> >
> According to my last check, Rick has fixed the issue.
> host yahoo.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net
On 10/06/2014 12:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/6/2014 12:39 PM, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hello, has anyone else experienced an HUGE uptick in the number of
rejected legitimate emails following an sa-update run over this past
weekend (possibly yesterday, Oct 5)? It looks like something caus
On 10/6/2014 12:39 PM, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hello, has anyone else experienced an HUGE uptick in the number of
rejected legitimate emails following an sa-update run over this past
weekend (possibly yesterday, Oct 5)? It looks like something caused
our once-adequate-and-happy required_hits va
Hello, has anyone else experienced an HUGE uptick in the number of
rejected legitimate emails following an sa-update run over this past
weekend (possibly yesterday, Oct 5)? It looks like something caused our
once-adequate-and-happy required_hits value of 7.0 to be way too
restrictive suddenly
Am 06.10.2014 um 18:04 schrieb Alex:
Postfix header_checks:
/^Received\-SPF/ IGNORE
/^X\-Antispam/ IGNORE
/^X\-Antivirus/ IGNORE
Can you explain how this helps someone using postfix?
It helps nothing in postfix, but it might help on content filters,
Hi,
>> > Postfix header_checks:
>> >
>> > /^Received\-SPF/ IGNORE
>> > /^X\-Antispam/ IGNORE
>> > /^X\-Antivirus/ IGNORE
>
>> Can you explain how this helps someone using postfix?
>
>
> It helps nothing in postfix, but it might help on content filters, carefu
On 10/06/2014 01:55 PM, David Jones wrote:
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.?
According to my last check, Rick has fixed the issue.
host yahoo.com.dob.sibl.support-intelligence.net
Host yahoo.com.dob.sib
On 10/4/2014 4:38 PM, Yasir Assam wrote:
Thanks Reindl.
I haven't investigated ipv6 properly, but looking at my Hosting
provider's wiki and a few of my config files, it seems ipv6 is available
(I have been assigned an ipv6 subnet). I have something like this:
http://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Net
On October 6, 2014 4:03:11 PM Alex wrote:
> Postfix header_checks:
>
> /^Received\-SPF/ IGNORE
> /^X\-Antispam/ IGNORE
> /^X\-Antivirus/ IGNORE
Can you explain how this helps someone using postfix?
It helps nothing in postfix, but it might help on con
Am 06.10.2014 um 16:03 schrieb Alex:
Postfix header_checks:
/^Received\-SPF/ IGNORE
/^X\-Antispam/ IGNORE
/^X\-Antivirus/ IGNORE
...
Can you explain how this helps someone using postfix?
headers from outside are meaningless and untrustable
i don't to s
Hi,
> Postfix header_checks:
>
> /^Received\-SPF/ IGNORE
> /^X\-Antispam/ IGNORE
> /^X\-Antivirus/ IGNORE
...
Can you explain how this helps someone using postfix?
Thanks,
Alex
On October 6, 2014 3:03:30 PM jdime abuse wrote:
I have been seeing some issues with bayes detection from base64 strings
within attachments causing false positives.
Train more data then, bayes needs more data to prevent it
Example:
Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869] dbg: bayes: token 'H4f' => 0.99
I have been seeing some issues with bayes detection from base64 strings
within attachments causing false positives.
Example:
Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869] dbg: bayes: token 'H4f' => 0.71186828264
Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869] dbg: bayes: token 'wx2' => 0.68644662127
Oct 6 09:02:14.374 [15869]
On 10/06/2014 02:04 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/6/2014 7:56 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.10.2014 um 13:55 schrieb David Jones:
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.
yes - completly disabled the rule in l
On 10/6/2014 7:56 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.10.2014 um 13:55 schrieb David Jones:
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.
yes - completly disabled the rule in local.cf
Concur that we are seeing something very
Am 06.10.2014 um 13:55 schrieb David Jones:
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.
yes - completly disabled the rule in local.cf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Anyone else seeing an unusually high hit count today for URIBL_RHS_DOB?
Looks like every query is returning 127.0.0.2.?
45 matches
Mail list logo
