>> 2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> > Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
>> > crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
>> >
>> > I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
>> > behavior.
>> > http://www.zdnet.com/shells
Benny Pedersen wrote:
The problem is solved with perl 5.18, 5.20, 5.21.5,
which deal with pPOK vs. POK flags somewhat differently.
Spampd 2.30 does not work with perl 5.18, spampd 2.42 does, seem lot
is changed in perl, so is it not just mail::dkim that needs updates
for perl 5.18 ?
Or is it u
On October 29, 2014 8:52:40 PM Mark Martinec wrote:
The problem is solved with perl 5.18, 5.20, 5.21.5,
which deal with pPOK vs. POK flags somewhat differently.
Spampd 2.30 does not work with perl 5.18, spampd 2.42 does, seem lot is
changed in perl, so is it not just mail::dkim that needs up
That message will arrive again probably by tomorrow. Due to the size of
the message, I'll put it in my web space with full headers and once done
send a follow up url to this list. Any interested can then get all the
details.
--
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, David Jones wrote:
From: Jude DaShiel
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 00:14 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> 2014-10-20 20:11, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > sorry, no, but what i face repeatly are messages like below
> > in fact only if the machine has more than 1 dns in resolv.conf
> > configure it to just use 127.0.0.1 and that won't ha
On 10/29/2014 10:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/28/2014 7:24 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:23 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Axb
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:39 +0100
before I commit please test with
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST Whitelisted header host or domain
On 10/28/2014 7:24 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:23 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Axb
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:39 +0100
before I commit please test with
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST Whitelisted header host or domain
describe HEADER_HOST_IN_WHITELIST Blacklisted
> From: Jude DaShiell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 3:54 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: what can be done about deep sea nutrition spam?
> The garbage they send is 6MB in length. Their unsubscribe link also
> doesn't work.
Use RBLs that have this server listed (didn't pr
The garbage they send is 6MB in length. Their unsubscribe link also
doesn't work.
--
Thomas Preißler wrote:
Hey Mark,
thanks for your explanation!
I'm beginning to understand what is going on here.
Because you have a older version of Mail::DKIM, spamassassin is
unable to provide it with its own resolver, so Mail::DKIM does
it by directly calling Net::DNS, which uses IO::Socket:
Hey Mark,
thanks for your explanation!
> I'm beginning to understand what is going on here.
> Because you have a older version of Mail::DKIM, spamassassin is
> unable to provide it with its own resolver, so Mail::DKIM does
> it by directly calling Net::DNS, which uses IO::Socket::INET,
> whil
On Oct 29, 2014, at 16:54, Mark Martinec wrote:
> 2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
>> crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
>> I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
>>
I’ve been reporting a flood of new spammers operating out of Office365 to them.
These are well known spam domains which have moved to Office365. MX and
outbound mailers net handle records point to ab...@microsoft.com.
OrgAbuseHandle: MAC74-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Microsoft Abuse Contact
OrgAbusePh
Le 29/10/2014 16:54, Mark Martinec a écrit :
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
behavior.
http://www.zd
On Oct 28, 2014 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
=>Reindl Harald wrote:
=>
=>> frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
=>> procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
=>> should somebody step in and main
I have my mail system running beautifully with spamassassin, but can’t get
bayes filtering to work. I’m assuming it’s a user/group issue, since if I run
tests as my ‘amavis’ user (which is how I should have it running) it does show
bayes results, but when the mail system itself processes a mess
2014-10-29 16:26, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via
crafty SMTP headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper
behavior.
http://www.zdnet.com/shellshock-attacks-mail-servers-7000
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via crafty SMTP
headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
http://www.zdnet.com/shellshock-attacks-mail-servers-70
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via crafty SMTP
headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
http://www.zdnet.com/shellshock-attacks-mail-servers-735094/
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, francis picabia
wrote:
> I've tested the rule:
>
> uri URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH
> m;^https?://(?:[^./]+\.)*example\.com[^/?];i
>
>
> is catching this sample newletter link:
>
> Oct 29 09:38:50.368 [24608] dbg: rules: ran uri rule
> URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH ==> got hi
I've tested the rule:
uri URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH
m;^https?://(?:[^./]+\.)*example\.com[^/?];i
is catching this sample newletter link:
Oct 29 09:38:50.368 [24608] dbg: rules: ran uri rule
URI_MYDOMAIN_PHISH ==> got hit: "http://example.com&";
Complete email body content in test of newslette
The Bayes system scores messages based on the occurence of tokens (pieces
of text) that appear in the E-mail. The signature you mention seems to
contain tokens that are very commonly used in spam. Best solution would be
to rewrite the signature to not contain those tokens. I don't know how you
can
On 10/29/2014 11:38 AM, Marco Tironi / 8volante Srl wrote:
Thanks for your fast reply. Now I understand the big mistake: Bayesian
filter is server specific and not "public" so it's not globally manteined.
Every server have its own indexes so there is no fast solution to solve it
globally.
I can
Thanks for your fast reply. Now I understand the big mistake: Bayesian
filter is server specific and not "public" so it's not globally manteined.
Every server have its own indexes so there is no fast solution to solve it
globally.
I can allow that signrature for my server, but others server contin
Am 29.10.2014 um 10:50 schrieb Marco Tironi / 8volante Srl:
Hi, I use a Spamassasin version 3.3.1 on Windows System and I have a
problem with Bayesian filter:
-A legitimate users send an email to our server and they are delivered
normally
-When that users insert it’s domain in the email signat
Hi, I use a Spamassasin version 3.3.1 on Windows System and I have a problem
with Bayesian filter:
- A legitimate users send an email to our server and they are
delivered normally
- When that users insert its domain in the email signature the
email is marked as spam with that h
BEWARE: this *may* cause false positives - YMMV
after the required rule addition:
if (version >= 3.004000)
blacklist_uri_host pink
endif
domains seen lately:
http://pastebin.com/uH4YfVXR
same may apply to the red TLD
BEWARE: this *may* cause false positives - YMMV
27 matches
Mail list logo
