i was testing with a sample message, and noticed that when running manually
with --debug, there seem to be numerous differences in the results, such as
scores for the same tests differing, visual ordering of results differing [is
this significant?], and bayes not being listed when using --debug.
On 03/12/2014 12:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have
>> bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn and say
>> - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of notice, I think 12
>> months not
On 12/2/2014 5:50 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything
older have far greater issues :)
(says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe
but theyll join the 14 series this Christ
Hello,
I've got a Postfix/Amavis/Spamassassin/Clamav setup running on an fc20
machine. It's all working except for the SA part, which is working
that is it tags messages as spam or in my case not spam I see the
headers.
The problem is I'm using a completely virtual users setup user
information co
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.12.2014 um 19:22 schrieb Niamh Holding:
>> Hello Reindl,
>>
>> Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 6:14:26 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> RH> no, i am saying nobody right in his mind is rejecting mails because
>> RH> *one* RBL
>>
>> You do say the
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/2/2014 6:19 AM, LuKreme wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from a
>>> sender that happens to email a honeypot.
>>
>> Right.
On 03/12/2014 09:18, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> ".if *anyone* sends *anything* to that address it is unsolicited mail -
> spam, so that IP sender is blacklisted and placed in a DNSBL as well because
> there is no possible legitimate reason to send to that address
>
> ït is not real
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrai
".if *anyone* sends *anything* to that address it is unsolicited mail -
spam, so that IP sender is blacklisted and placed in a DNSBL as well
because there is no possible legitimate reason to send to that address
ït is not really true. If a spammer sends to a list of addresses and among the
On 03/12/2014 03:07, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from a
>>> sender that happens to email a honeypot.
>>
>> Right. Tha
On 03/12/2014 03:08, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Noel Butler skrev den 2014-12-02 05:38:
> On 01/12/2014 22:27, Benny Pedersen wrote: Please turn of html never going to
> happen
this will be added so to my sieve autoreader, eg i can save reading your
hints of my own problems again
Benny you don
On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have
>> far greater issues :)
>>
>> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but theyll
>> join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them
jdow wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine
> > > work on the project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road
> > > discourage you from future work. That would be a tragedy for the
> > > project and for the u
On 12/02/2014 09:10 PM, jdow wrote:
Does this show the error?
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
&& version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit}
])/
endif
It doesn't show the
On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > F
On 12/02/2014 07:02 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Axb wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:58 AM, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
Hello,
I still use the pdfinfo plugin from Dallas Engelken (and it still
hits on
some
messages). But does anyone know the status of the plugin? Is it
maintained?
I'm
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in
> -Original Message-
> From: Niamh Holding [mailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:27 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric
>
>
> Hello Noel,
>
> Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 4:57:08 AM, you wrote:
>
> NB> 5.
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501
> test so I
On 12/02/2014 07:22 PM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Reindl,
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 6:14:26 PM, you wrote:
RH> no, i am saying nobody right in his mind is rejecting mails because
RH> *one* RBL
You do say the sweetest things!
Should I be offended given that we block at SMTP time if an IP ad
Am 02.12.2014 um 19:22 schrieb Niamh Holding:
Hello Reindl,
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 6:14:26 PM, you wrote:
RH> no, i am saying nobody right in his mind is rejecting mails because
RH> *one* RBL
You do say the sweetest things!
Should I be offended given that we block at SMTP time if an IP a
Hello Reindl,
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 6:14:26 PM, you wrote:
RH> no, i am saying nobody right in his mind is rejecting mails because
RH> *one* RBL
You do say the sweetest things!
Should I be offended given that we block at SMTP time if an IP address
is listed in just one of a chosen select
On 12/02/2014 07:02 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Axb wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:58 AM, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
Hello,
I still use the pdfinfo plugin from Dallas Engelken (and it still
hits on
some
messages). But does anyone know the status of the plugin? Is it
maintained?
I'm
Am 02.12.2014 um 18:24 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 12/2/2014 6:19 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything
from a sender that happens to email a honeypot.
Right. That i the *point* of a honey
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501
> test so I would stick with just that for now.
O
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Axb wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:58 AM, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
Hello,
I still use the pdfinfo plugin from Dallas Engelken (and it still hits on
some
messages). But does anyone know the status of the plugin? Is it
maintained?
I'm partially to blame this plugin exists - rule
On 12/2/2014 9:31 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 12/2/2014 6:19 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything
from a sender that happens to email a ho
On 12/2/2014 12:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 12/2/2014 6:19 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything
from a sender that happens to email a honeypot.
Right. That i the *point* of a honeypo
On 12/2/2014 6:19 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from a
sender that happens to email a honeypot.
Right. That i the *point* of a honeypot. The only thing going to a honeypot is
going
Noel Butler skrev den 2014-12-02 05:38:
On 01/12/2014 22:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Please turn of html
never going to happen
this will be added so to my sieve autoreader, eg i can save reading your
hints of my own problems again
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from
> a sender that happens to email a honeypot.
>
> Right. That i the *point* of a honeypot. The only thing going to a
>
jdow skrev den 2014-12-01 23:56:
I just added the following to my user-prefs file:
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS && !__VIA_ML &&
!__VIA_RESIGNER
endif
No error here SL6.6, perl 5.10.1 and SA 3.3.1.
good, but 3.4.2 do
Axb skrev den 2014-12-02 13:16:
No matter how hard I look, I can't find a dns_server option in SA's
conf
oh are you living in belgium ? :)
did you mean dns_available ??
next line after that is dns_server
(
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
)
or
Hello Noel,
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 4:57:08 AM, you wrote:
NB> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have
far greater issues
CentOS 5.11 doesn't go EOL until 2017 and it has 5.8.8
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.
Am 02.12.2014 um 15:20 schrieb Matteo Dessalvi:
@Mark: thanks for the explanations about Amavis/SA.
@Reindl: thanks, I am indeed using unbound as a DNS
caching server. Interesting the option 'minimal-responses',
I would check that
it's damned useful, Google using it also on their public NS
a
Hi.
@Mark: thanks for the explanations about Amavis/SA.
@Reindl: thanks, I am indeed using unbound as a DNS
caching server. Interesting the option 'minimal-responses',
I would check that.
Regards,
Matteo
On 02.12.2014 14:16, Mark Martinec wrote:
Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I have a short quest
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from a
> sender that happens to email a honeypot.
Right. That i the *point* of a honeypot. The only thing going to a honeypot is
going to be a spammer.
> Most honeypots are
For example DKIM validation is done by amavisd calling
Net::DNS directly
A nitpick: Actually, amavisd is calling Mail::DKIM when DKIM
validation is enabled, which in turn calls Net::DNS. The validation
result is then passed to SpamAssassin's DKIM plugin, so that it
doesn't need to do the valida
Am 02.12.2014 um 14:16 schrieb Mark Martinec:
Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I have a short question about the dns_server option of SA.
Is this option used when SA is called from Amavis and there
isn't any spamd process running?
Yes it is.
To be more clear: should I also be forced to add the IP
add
Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I have a short question about the dns_server option of SA.
Is this option used when SA is called from Amavis and there
isn't any spamd process running?
Yes it is.
To be more clear: should I also be forced to add the IP
address of the caching DNS server to /etc/resolv.co
On 12/2/2014 12:28 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
For anyone else, this discussion about honeypots STARTED as a
discussion on where to find good Bayes feeding sources.
No, it started as a discussion about honeypots to help the SOUGHT 2.0
project which could use more volunteers, BTW!
Regards,
KA
On 12/1/2014 11:57 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2014 10:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only
clean solution is
can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low
Yes, I have read the docs but I was not sure if SA,
when used through Amavis, would use such option.
Nevermind, I pushed up the log verbosity of my DNS
caching service and it looks like SA is using it.
So, problem solved :-).
Thanks.
Best regards,
Matteo
On 02.12.2014 13:18, Axb wrote:
doh..
On 12/02/2014 01:16 PM, Axb wrote:
On 12/02/2014 12:32 PM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
Hi all.
I have a short question about the dns_server option of SA.
Is this option used when SA is called from Amavis and there
isn't any spamd process running?
To be more clear: should I also be forced to add the
On 12/02/2014 12:32 PM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
Hi all.
I have a short question about the dns_server option of SA.
Is this option used when SA is called from Amavis and there
isn't any spamd process running?
To be more clear: should I also be forced to add the IP
address of the caching DNS serve
On 02/12/2014 15:28, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:47 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 09:07, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 01.12.2014 um 23:46 schrieb
> Franck Martin: On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald
> mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: Am 26.11.2014
> um 19:45 s
Hi all.
I have a short question about the dns_server option of SA.
Is this option used when SA is called from Amavis and there
isn't any spamd process running?
To be more clear: should I also be forced to add the IP
address of the caching DNS server to /etc/resolv.conf
or the option would be suf
On 12/02/2014 11:58 AM, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
Hello,
I still use the pdfinfo plugin from Dallas Engelken (and it still hits on some
messages). But does anyone know the status of the plugin? Is it maintained?
I'm partially to blame this plugin exists - rule support, etc.
Does it make sense to
Hello,
I still use the pdfinfo plugin from Dallas Engelken (and it still hits on some
messages). But does anyone know the status of the plugin? Is it maintained?
Does it make sense to use it with spamassassin 3.4.0 or is a similar
functionality already included there?
Best regards
Stefan
49 matches
Mail list logo
