Hello guys,
Since yesterday I'm running a server with ubuntu 14.04.1 and
spamassassin version
3.4.0-1ubuntu2. Spamassassin was installed as a package from the ubuntu
repositories. SpamAssassin runs in daemon mode with a user named spamd.
This morning I got the following email. It indicates, t
On 1/11/2015 3:24 PM, Marieke Janssen wrote:
Hello all,
In some (apple|bank|creditcard) scam mail I found the following header
and made a rule for it.
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel3.example.org: authenticated_id:
f0829646/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
describe MJ_VA
On 1/11/2015 10:04 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
validate signatures with keys ranging from 5
> On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
> long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
> validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits
>
> If it is
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits
If it is 512 to 2048, I think the rfc is clear for recipients.
Regards,
KAM
Kevin A. McGrail:
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
I disagree.
Lauras article is more then two years old. But since more then 4 years
( Sep 2011 )
RFC 6376 say very cl
Hello all,
In some (apple|bank|creditcard) scam mail I found the following header and
made a rule for it.
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel3.example.org: authenticated_id:
f0829646/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
describe MJ_VACCOUNTvirtual account not confirm
Am 11.01.2015 um 16:20 schrieb Marcin Mirosław:
W dniu 2015-01-11 o 04:49, Reindl Harald pisze:
Am 10.01.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Marcin Mirosław:
W dniu 2015-01-10 o 15:27, Reindl Harald pisze:
Am 10.01.2015 um 15:19 schrieb David Flanigan:
Is anyone using the Malware Patrol 3rd party Spamas
On 1/11/2015 12:45 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16:
A quick Google search brings up this
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
bug created,
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16:
A quick Google search brings up this
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
bug created, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendkim/bugs/215/
Am 11.01.2015 um 18:16 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so
>> i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if
>> the key check is PASS ?
>>
>> this leads to spamassass
On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so
i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if
the key check is PASS ?
this leads to spamassassin VALID, but opendkim testing INVALID
hmm
A quick Google
P.S.2. All grepping was made in directory contains only spam.
W dniu 2015-01-11 o 04:49, Reindl Harald pisze:
>
> Am 10.01.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Marcin Mirosław:
>> W dniu 2015-01-10 o 15:27, Reindl Harald pisze:
>>>
>>> Am 10.01.2015 um 15:19 schrieb David Flanigan:
Is anyone using the Malware Patrol 3rd party Spamassassin Rules
(https://www.malwa
On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote:
I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject
emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected
"List-Id" header) - or something else?
Uhm - no
* Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the
rc
On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote:
I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject
emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected
"List-Id" header) - or something else?
Uhm - no
* Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the
rc
16 matches
Mail list logo
