On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I would guess I missed the cutoff for yesterday's masscheck and
tomorrow's will include it.
Rule gen just finished and the update does include the fix if you want
to confirm.
Regards,
KAM
Hi list, I'm setting up a gw for a mail server and am using centos 6.6
x64, and I want to update the version of spamassassin has by default,
that stable version recommend? And if someone has the rpm for this
version much appreciate your support, I've seen some packages ftp
servers but not sure if t
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Antony Stone skrev den 2015-02-10 21:33:
What happens to an email from u...@abc.com, sent to someone other than
u...@recipient.example.com? Won't that then be whitelisted, even though
whoever it's addressed to hasn't asked for that (only user@recipie
Antony Stone skrev den 2015-02-10 21:33:
What happens to an email from u...@abc.com, sent to someone other than
u...@recipient.example.com? Won't that then be whitelisted, even
though
whoever it's addressed to hasn't asked for that (only user@recipient
asked for
this treatment)?
yes add al
Am 10.02.2015 um 21:33 schrieb Antony Stone:
On Tuesday 10 Feb 2015 at 20:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Antony Stone skrev den 2015-02-10 19:28:
I think the original question was in fact asking about allowing email
from specific external *domains*, not from specific *addresses*, however
more imp
On Tuesday 10 Feb 2015 at 20:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Antony Stone skrev den 2015-02-10 19:28:
> > I think the original question was in fact asking about allowing email
> > from specific external *domains*, not from specific *addresses*, however
> > more importantly, how to get these rules to a
Antony Stone skrev den 2015-02-10 19:28:
I think the original question was in fact asking about allowing email
from
specific external *domains*, not from specific *addresses*, however
more
importantly, how to get these rules to apply only to mail destined for
a
single user's address, no matte
On Tuesday 10 Feb 2015 at 18:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Rajesh M skrev den 2015-02-10 18:56:
> > i have an email id : u...@abc.com
> >
> > now i need to set a rule such that u...@abc.com can receive emails
> > only from specific external domains and rest all should be rejected as
> > spam
>
> b
Rajesh M skrev den 2015-02-10 18:56:
i have an email id : u...@abc.com
now i need to set a rule such that u...@abc.com can receive emails
only from specific external domains and rest all should be rejected as
spam
blacklist_from *@example.com
unblacklist_from u...@example.com
if you need mor
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Rajesh M wrote:
i send bcc email to test@mydomain. then the header contains Delivered-To
Take a look at the Received header on the BCC message. The username may
also appear there.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.
hi
i have an email id : u...@abc.com
now i need to set a rule such that u...@abc.com can receive emails only from
specific external domains and rest all should be rejected as spam
i have set a rule as such
header MYDOMAIN_A ToCc =~ /\b(?:test\@mydomain\.com)\b/i
header MYDOMAIN_B Delivered-To
Paul Stead skrev den 2015-02-10 17:39:
is uridnsbl not supporting 127.0.0.2 testing ?
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_URIDNSBL.html
uridnsbl cannot have the subtest you want
yep if there is need to make it, feel free to make a bug rfe
add
On 02/10/2015 06:00 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/02/15 16:55, Axb wrote:
On 02/10/2015 05:39 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_URIDNSBL.html
uridnsbl cannot have the subtest you want
3.2.x docs? seems slightly old
On 10/02/15 16:55, Axb wrote:
On 02/10/2015 05:39 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_URIDNSBL.html
uridnsbl cannot have the subtest you want
3.2.x docs? seems slightly old .-)
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:55:11 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 10. feb. 2015 15.39.41 "Kevin A. McGrail"
> wrote:
>
> > > uridnsblURIBL_SBL_Asbl.spamhaus.org. A
> >> uridnsbl foo zen.spamhaus.org. a 127.0.0.2
>
> fails to lint
>
> > sems feasible. Have you tested adding reuse
On 02/10/2015 05:39 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/02/15 15:55, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 10. feb. 2015 15.39.41 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> uridnsblURIBL_SBL_Asbl.spamhaus.org. A
uridnsbl foo zen.spamhaus.org. a 127.0.0.2
fails to lint
nope when i changed it it did not lint
On 10/02/15 15:55, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 10. feb. 2015 15.39.41 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> uridnsblURIBL_SBL_Asbl.spamhaus.org. A
uridnsbl foo zen.spamhaus.org. a 127.0.0.2
fails to lint
nope when i changed it it did not lint, possibe why sbl.spamhaus.org is
used ?
i
Uh,ohsorry my bad. I did it try the modifed ruleset on
a test installation without the Rule2XSBody plugin enabled.
With the plugin enabled (and after restarting Amavis) it looks
like those warning messages are not there anymore.
Thanks a lot for the fix!
Regards,
Matteo
On 10.02.2015 16:
On 10. feb. 2015 15.39.41 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> uridnsblURIBL_SBL_Asbl.spamhaus.org. A
uridnsbl foo zen.spamhaus.org. a 127.0.0.2
fails to lint
sems feasible. Have you tested adding reuse to the tflags on the
URIBL_SBL_A rule?
nope when i changed it it did not li
Am 10.02.2015 um 16:07 schrieb Axb:
On 02/10/2015 03:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
URIBL_SBL_A shouldn't be "reuse"d as it includeds IPs of shared hacked
servers with very short listing periods or listings which were not
removed by ISPs.
i can't parse this
the "reuse" just saves a DNS request
On 2/10/2015 9:54 AM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
Hello KAM.
Unfortuntately I am still getting the same "warning messages"
with the new 25_spf.cf.
It looks like that the check part:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF::has_check_for_spf_errors)
(...)
endif
is ignored. Could it be an effect intr
On 02/10/2015 03:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.02.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Axb:
On 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
uridnssub URIBL_SBLzen.spamhaus.org. A 127.0.0.2
bodyURIBL_SBLeval:check_uridns
Hello KAM.
Unfortuntately I am still getting the same "warning messages"
with the new 25_spf.cf.
It looks like that the check part:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF::has_check_for_spf_errors)
(...)
endif
is ignored. Could it be an effect introduced by the sa-compile step?
The output of t
Am 10.02.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Axb:
On 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
uridnssub URIBL_SBLzen.spamhaus.org. A 127.0.0.2
bodyURIBL_SBLeval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
describeURIBL_SBL
On 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
uridnssub URIBL_SBLzen.spamhaus.org. A 127.0.0.2
bodyURIBL_SBLeval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
describeURIBL_SBLContains an URL's NS IP listed in th
On 2/9/2015 8:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
uridnssub URIBL_SBLzen.spamhaus.org. A 127.0.0.2
bodyURIBL_SBLeval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
describeURIBL_SBLContains an URL's NS IP listed in the
SBL blocklist
tflags URIBL_SBL
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 2/10/2015 9:00 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Kevin A. McGrail
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/9/2015 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what is that below introduced with tonights update and get triggered n
On 2/10/2015 9:27 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Then I'll hope the rule update hits tomorrow. There is some vagueness to my
>understanding of exactly how long rules take from start to finish to go
>outbound. There are some emergency rule generation procedures if someone
>wants to help the project.
On 2/10/2015 9:00 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/9/2015 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what is that below introduced with tonights update and get triggered now
for every single mail and why does such things not automatically get caught
befo
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 2/9/2015 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> what is that below introduced with tonights update and get triggered now
>> for every single mail and why does such things not automatically get caught
>> before push?
>
> It was part of a com
30 matches
Mail list logo
