On 24 Nov 2015, at 17:20, David Jones wrote:
[...]
NOTE: I have just now tested that I can give Postfix (with
reject_unknown_helo_hostname not enabled) a fully-qualified HELO name
that has no A or one with an A resolving to 192.0.2.1 (and therefore:
no
PTR) and in both cases Postfix neither lo
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Bill Cole wrote:
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
It seems to me like the entirety of the pro
Am 25.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
I think Justin's rationale there isn't ev
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
I think Justin's rationale there isn't even the whole case for NOT doing
DNS checks
Community growth starts by talking with those interested in your
project. ApacheCon North America is coming, are you?
We are delighted to announce that the Call For Presentations (CFP) is
now open for ApacheCon North America. You can submit your proposed
sessions at
http://events.linuxfoundation.o
Am 25.11.15 um 15:56 schrieb RW:.
3. You have no test for dynamic rDNS
why that when SA makes the dns request and so have a rDNS?
Because, as far as I can see, the patch doesn't make the rDNS available
to SA's other tests, it just supplies a stand-alone test for no-rDNS.
Correct.
I don
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:54:46 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 25.11.2015 um 14:41 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
> > Matthias Apitz wrote:
> >
> >> I think we can close this thread now :-)
> >
> > IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
> >
> > The absence of reverse DNS gives
Am 25.11.2015 um 14:41 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I think we can close this thread now :-)
IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
The absence of reverse DNS gives you three problem:
1. You have no test for the absence of rDNS
why that when SA
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> I think we can close this thread now :-)
IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
The absence of reverse DNS gives you three problem:
1. You have no test for the absence of rDNS
2. You have no test for the absence of full-circle DNS
On 11/25/2015 6:07 AM, Edda wrote:
Ouch, sorry, i tested it on 3.3.1 and "re-typed" that line in 3.4.1
Does the patch work for you?
Since we're currently developing in both 3.4.2 and 4.0 and now you have
bumped into the same problem, I might as well share this:
repatch() {
(cd $1 && svn
El día Wednesday, November 25, 2015 a las 12:07:12PM +0100, Edda escribió:
> >>'check_rbl_envfrom',
> >> +'check_dsn_rdns',
> > ^^
> >>'check_dns_sender',
> >> ];
> >>
> >> @@ -373,6 +374,25 @@
> >> }
> >>}
> >>
> >> +sub check_dns_rdns {
> >
Am 25.11.15 um 09:55 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:27:45PM +0100, Edda escribió:
I have found the bug in your patch, just a spelling issue:
pop:Mail eh$ diff -u SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG
SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm
--- SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEv
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:27:45PM +0100, Edda escribió:
I have found the bug in your patch, just a spelling issue:
>
> pop:Mail eh$ diff -u SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG
> SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm
> --- SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG2015-11-24 19:02:58.0
I use per-user databases for unix users and virtual users on both small
and large shops. It works pretty well. I have two instances of spamd
running, one for unix users and the 2nd one on port 784 for virtual-users.
Mail flow is postfix > spamc > dovecot-lda
If you only have virtual users then
14 matches
Mail list logo
