???
Are you using imap to fetch your mail?
Thanks guys. Yes I am using imap. What I have is a .procmailrc that
forwards to meganspam. That's how this email got to meganspam. Is
spamassasin is running twice? Once going to megan@ and then at
meganspam@. Wh
Am 17.10.2014 um 19:45 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:59:30 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
does SA need anything to recognize a rsynced bayes on similar setups
to load the new version or is it anyways reopened for each connection
by spamd child?
I think so, and I don't recall any special han
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:59:30 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Hi
>
> does SA need anything to recognize a rsynced bayes on similar setups
> to load the new version or is it anyways reopened for each connection
> by spamd child?
I think so, and I don't recall any special handling being needed for
sa-
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:37:20 -0700
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
>
>
> From me...@ecuador.junglevision.com Mon Oct 13 08:38:09 2014
> Return-Path:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
> ecuador.junglevisio
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:13:49 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> > The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
> >
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
> > tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> > EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 09:34 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> I should check. I do well less than 100 legitimate emails a day, but I
> think I might be pulling in thousand(s)+ of spam.
>
1) check that your DNS isn't forwarding requests to another DNS.
Its the 'forward' statement(s) in your DNS
Am 17.10.2014 um 18:34 schrieb Cathryn Mataga:
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belong
On 10/17/2014 12:13 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/17/2014 06:02 PM, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
Greetings,
I'm receiving a specific type of spam which From header is always like:
From: service by foobar
These guys always use "by foobar" or " foobar" (not the real string,
don't want them to notice in ca
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the blacklists think you exceeded the free
limit: they co
On 10/17/2014 06:02 PM, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
Greetings,
I'm receiving a specific type of spam which From header is always like:
From: service by foobar
These guys always use "by foobar" or " foobar" (not the real string,
don't want them to notice in case they read the list archives) in t
Greetings,
I'm receiving a specific type of spam which From header is always like:
From: service by foobar
These guys always use "by foobar" or " foobar" (not the real string,
don't want them to notice in case they read the list archives) in the
sender description string, so they should be easy
On 09/01/2014 01:39 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2014, at 14:38 , Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Doesn't ok_languages and ok_locales do the job? It does for me.
> Not with UTF-8 encoding, that setting only seems to apply to old-stye
> character declarations.
>
This was exactly my point. As long as
On 10/16/2014 6:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
was a reply to "getting tons of SPAM"
well, the Received and X-Virus-Scanned quote are hitting but looks
like reject just because of that is a bit questionable on a list about
spam
: host
mx1.eu.apache.org[192.87.106.230] said: 552 spam score (11.
On 10/17/2014 4:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i only find it strange that the SA list has configured such a high
score for the URIBLs that even respoond and quote leads to get rejected
We don't run the list. It's run under the ASF infrastructure.
Regards,
KAM
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID,
> URIBL_BLOCKED
Am 17.10.2014 um 12:02 schrieb Joolee:
File base bayes is actually quite slow. Isn't it an option for you to
use an sql replicated master-slave set or cluster or per haps Redis
master-slave replication?
performance is not a problem here, no high traffic on the submission
servers and on the in
On 10/17/2014 12:02 PM, Joolee wrote:
It would be nice if we'd be able to use a clustered nosql database though.
nosql like what?
something like Cassandra? CouchDB? for Bayes they're slower than file
DB.(tested, dumped)
If your traffic size justifies it, till Redis cluster is released, loa
File base bayes is actually quite slow. Isn't it an option for you to use
an sql replicated master-slave set or cluster or per haps Redis
master-slave replication?
It would be nice if we'd be able to use a clustered nosql database though.
Kind regards,
Peter Overtoom
On 17 October 2014 11:59, Re
Hi
does SA need anything to recognize a rsynced bayes on similar setups to
load the new version or is it anyways reopened for each connection by
spamd child?
in case of clamd rsync "/var/lib/clamav/" is enough
background:
* a perfect trained bayes on the inbound spamfirewall
* after recentl
Am 17.10.2014 um 02:57 schrieb Derek Harding:
On 10/15/14, 10:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and *why* do you NOT state that in your *first* message?
That was my first message
ah so you hijacked a thread pretending unsubscribe don't work but don't
know if the OP tried it nor made clear you
Am 17.10.2014 um 08:42 schrieb Matthias Leisi:
192.87.106.230 should hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, not _LOW. Either you
redefined these rules, or something is broken.
nope
that's just the rejecting machine
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW is our server
i only find it strange that the SA list has configured such a
On 2014-10-16 19:14, Duane Hill wrote:
Are you sending the unsubscribe request from an address subscribed?
That generates a useful error message too:
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
Acknowledgment: The address
li...@hireahit.com
24 matches
Mail list logo
