Am 17.09.2015 um 01:45 schrieb Nick Edwards:
also I wonder why an unbound user joins the bind list
because some people are smart enough to use different software for
different usecases as unbound for caching-only servers and named for
autoritative nameservers and for some usecases like rout
lol I KNEW youd that cause you just cant help yourself, trying to draw
attention away from yourself, but thats OK every person whos come
across you knows better, a simple google of your name shows an
immense number of your vitriol on many many lists.
the bannings youve had from many many lists s
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-09-16 18:45:
On 9/16/2015 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Alex wrote:
There are a few rules that seem to overlap in these instances:
* 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
* Subject: text
* 1.0 FSL_EMPTY_BOD
On 9/16/2015 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Alex wrote:
There are a few rules that seem to overlap in these instances:
* 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
* Subject: text
* 1.0 FSL_EMPTY_BODY Message has completely empty body
Those tw
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Alex wrote:
There are a few rules that seem to overlap in these instances:
* 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
* Subject: text
* 1.0 FSL_EMPTY_BODY Message has completely empty body
Those two should probably be evaluated for overlap.
Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-09-16 15:35:
"cache-min-ttl" is AFAIK a unbound-only feature because it violates
RFC's but in case of a mailserver it's your decision and if you don#t
set it for days normally not a problem
so configure unbound to listing only on 127.0.0.2 and in named.conf use
fo
The SA config is probably a better solution than the bind exemptions.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, URIBL is not the only
DNS-based blacklist that enforces usage limits and it may not be as easy
to tell that you are being blocked with some of the others.
If you add in the 'dns_
On 9/16/2015 3:30 AM, Nathan wrote:
On 16/9/2015 12:05 AM, Bowie wrote:
It sounds like it might be an issue with your init script. Check the init
script for spamassassin and see if it is starting spamd with a
'--siteconfigpath' option or similar.
You may also need to check in /etc/sysconfig i
Am 16.09.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Marc Richter:
All this is true.
As you already pointed out in a previous post, resolving is quite slow
on that host. I have no influence on the networking arround that box. So
I did not want other things starting to go slow by this.
well, and there unbound with
All this is true.
As you already pointed out in a previous post, resolving is quite slow
on that host. I have no influence on the networking arround that box. So
I did not want other things starting to go slow by this.
But you convinced me - I now also thing that the other way bears too
much
Am 16.09.2015 um 13:38 schrieb Marc Richter:
Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb:
Although, the intended setup with exemptions by defining empty
forwarders for DNSBL zones was not my idea - this scenario is described
on the SA wiki as a working solution:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Cach
Hi Axb,
Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb:
Although, the intended setup with exemptions by defining empty
forwarders for DNSBL zones was not my idea - this scenario is described
on the SA wiki as a working solution:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver#Non-forwarding
This seem
Hi Axb,
yes, I did c&p the config block from the wiki 1:1 into my BIND setup.
I have added that zone - exemption you suggested into my config.
I'll wait for a few spams to arrive to see the results.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Best regards,
Marc
Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb:
O
Am 16.09.2015 um 11:36 schrieb Marc Richter:
I am - it's the very same setup you describe like I'm using. The only
difference is that I do not rely on a dedicated DNS resolver I setup
myself, but the centralized nameserver of my ISP, which works exactly
like any nameserver I'd setup myself.
no
Hi Adam,
that's a great workarround and perfectly fits my needs! Thank you for
that! :)
I'll use this if I cannot find out why my exemptions do not work in a
reasonable amount of time.
Best regards,
Marc
Am 15.09.2015 um 20:14 schrieb Adam Major:
Hi.
If you don't want change DNS resolver
On 09/16/2015 11:36 AM, Marc Richter wrote:
if you are trying to insult people at all costs
really?
you would recognize it when i intend to do so
Please read your previous reply again. You will find that you used a
very harsh tone against someone who comes here asking questions in a
reasonab
Many thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 September 2015 10:35
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Stopping phishing using clean-mx
On 09/16/2015 11:28 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
> Is there any rule in spamassassin which uses clea
Hi Bowie,
thanks for your reply.
I would suggest temporarily removing the forward completely as a test
and see if this fixes the problem. If so, then your exemptions are not
working correctly. If not, then double-check that you are actually
using the local server and not still querying the IS
if you are trying to insult people at all costs
really?
you would recognize it when i intend to do so
Please read your previous reply again. You will find that you used a
very harsh tone against someone who comes here asking questions in a
reasonable and moderate tone. Yes - maybe I *am* do
On 09/16/2015 11:28 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
Is there any rule in spamassassin which uses clean-mx? From my observation
it is a very good site for phishing URL and we do get lot of mails with
phishing url embedded in it. Most of the time these sites are new, and
clean-mx are by far q
Is there any rule in spamassassin which uses clean-mx? From my observation
it is a very good site for phishing URL and we do get lot of mails with
phishing url embedded in it. Most of the time these sites are new, and
clean-mx are by far quickest to spot them.
Regards
Sujit
S
Hi Dave,
you are right: That is a measurement of "how fast is my ISP's cache?".
But literally, that's all I want:
I do not want "better" DNS results than I got from my ISPs DNS servers
so far. I'd like to keep up the benefit of using a large DNS cache,
without blocking these resources on my ho
On Wednesday 16 September 2015 at 10:32:55, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 16.09.2015 um 04:25 schrieb Nick Edwards:
> > - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
> > if i start to get rude
>
> the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.
> >>>
> >>>
Am 16.09.2015 um 04:25 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 9/15/15, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.09.2015 um 00:05 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who
would
file a bug
Am 16.09.2015 um 04:45 schrieb Alex:
Apparently our users use email quite a bit to share pictures. These
emails typically contain no subject and no body, just the image. This
hits all sorts of rules (perhaps correctly), and was just looking for
input on how it should be handled.
There are a fe
On 16/9/2015 12:05 AM, Bowie wrote:
> It sounds like it might be an issue with your init script. Check the init
> script for spamassassin and see if it is starting spamd with a
> '--siteconfigpath' option or similar.
> You may also need to check in /etc/sysconfig if your init script pulls
> any
26 matches
Mail list logo
