Am 14.05.2016 um 04:50 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sat, 14 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.05.2016 um 04:04 schrieb John Hardin:
How would a webservice be better? That would still be sending customer
emails to a third party for processing.
uhm you missed "and only give the rules which hi
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Bill Keenan wrote:
Googling this turns up some speculation…are the 4 curls failing because of a
mirror problem? Shame on me for not watching…I do not know when this error
started to occur. If there is a fix, where is it documented?
Bill
SpamAssassin version 3.4.1
runnin
On Sat, 14 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.05.2016 um 04:04 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i can't rsync customer mails to a 3rd party
You don't have to. You run the masscheck locally and only upload the
rule hit results. I upload my corpora because
Am 14.05.2016 um 04:14 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
On Sat, 14 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.05.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Joe Quinn wrote:
> The solution is to give your mail servers better hostnames that clue
> into the narrower scope of t
On Sat, 14 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.05.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Joe Quinn wrote:
> The solution is to give your mail servers better hostnames that clue
> into the narrower scope of their purpose.
This is NOT a practical solution. You c
Am 14.05.2016 um 04:04 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
i can't rsync customer mails to a 3rd party
You don't have to. You run the masscheck locally and only upload the
rule hit results. I upload my corpora because they are just my email and
are thus tiny.
If y
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
> the problem is blowing out such rules with such scores at all with a
> non working auto-QA (non-working in: no correction for days as well as
> dangerous scori
Am 13.05.2016 um 23:08 schrieb Tom Hendrikx:
On 13-05-16 18:29, Reindl Harald wrote:
especially you would not have much from the bayes-samples because they
would trigger all sort of wrong rules after strip most headers and and a
generic received header (which seems to be needed by the bayes-en
Am 13.05.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Joe Quinn wrote:
The solution is to give your mail servers better hostnames that clue
into the narrower scope of their purpose.
This is NOT a practical solution. You can't expect administrators to
know about this prob
Googling this turns up some speculation…are the 4 curls failing because of a
mirror problem? Shame on me for not watching…I do not know when this error
started to occur. If there is a fix, where is it documented?
Bill
SpamAssassin version 3.4.1
running on Perl version 5.20.2
# Update
umask 0
On 13-05-16 18:29, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 13.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb John Hardin:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>> the problem is blowing out such rules with such scores at all with a
>>> non working auto-QA (non-working in: no correction for days as well as
>>> dangerous
>From: Daniel J. Luke
>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:42 PM
>To: David Jones
>Cc: Vincent Fox; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: understanding HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR
>On May 13, 2016, at 4:24 PM, David Jones wrote:
>> This is a very simple concept and yet most mail admins don't know it or
On May 13, 2016, at 4:24 PM, David Jones wrote:
> This is a very simple concept and yet most mail admins don't know it or
> follow it.
indeed.
I haven't measured in a while, but the equivalent of postfix's
'reject_unknown_client_hostname' was the single most-effective anti-spam
measure I ever
On 05/13/2016 01:24 PM, David Jones wrote:
This is a very simple concept and yet most mail admins don't know it
or follow it.
I know right? IMO network/firewall backgrounds are worse though.
They are used to thinking in IP all day and DNS is just this
optional convenience.
Cheers.
>
>From: Vincent Fox
>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 2:57 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: understanding HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR
>On 05/13/2016 12:29 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>
>> While you are at it, make sure your forward and reverse dns matc
On 05/13/2016 12:29 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
While you are at it, make sure your forward and reverse dns match.
At least weekly, I get someone bickering with me that reverse DNS is not any
kind of requirement to be a legitimate server.
Often it comes from well-paid network administrators.
On May 13, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote:
> This is NOT a practical solution. You can't expect administrators to know
> about this problem, some styles of hostnames not playing well with SA.
Note that this isn't just a 'spamassassin' issue. You will likely experience
delivery pr
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Joe Quinn wrote:
SA uses IP-in-name as a machine-decidable definition of a dynamic IP, since you
can't really automate it otherwise. This heuristic holds
in the vast majority of cases, and is effective against a huge class of spam
that comes from public ISPs who don't bloc
SA uses IP-in-name as a machine-decidable definition of a dynamic IP,
since you can't really automate it otherwise. This heuristic holds in
the vast majority of cases, and is effective against a huge class of
spam that comes from public ISPs who don't block port 25.
An ISP's customers are gene
On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:40 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
> What algorithm does Bayes use to detect that it has already 'seen' a
> given message?
>
> When I receive a bolus (say 40~60) of 'phish' messages from a
> compromised Hotmail/gmail/yahoo account which are mostly the same
> (body, many
What algorithm does Bayes use to detect that it has already 'seen' a given
message?
When I receive a bolus (say 40~60) of 'phish' messages from a compromised
Hotmail/gmail/yahoo account which are mostly the same (body, many headers same,
only recipients, Message-ID, Date, and a few Received he
Thanks a lot for your answer, sorry for confusion.
But why add such a high score of 3,24 just before the host that sent my
server mail is webmail-201.76.63.163.ig.com.br ?
Its considered a dynamic IP? It isnt, its IGs server sending mail to our
server.
Can I ask Spamassassin folks to improve thi
Am 13.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
the problem is blowing out such rules with such scores at all with a
non working auto-QA (non-working in: no correction for days as well as
dangerous scoring of new rules from the start)
02-Mai-2016 00:12:34
On Fri, 13 May 2016, RW wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:42:07 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
WTF - Received: from daves-air.home ([1.125.7.92]) is another time a
DEEP HEADER Inspection -
This looks like a simple mistake rather than a deliberate attempt at a
deep check. You should file a bug report
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
the problem is blowing out such rules with such scores at all with a non
working auto-QA (non-working in: no correction for days as well as dangerous
scoring of new rules from the start)
02-Mai-2016 00:12:34: SpamAssassin: No update available
03-Mai-2
Am 13.05.2016 um 16:25 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:42:07 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
WTF - Received: from daves-air.home ([1.125.7.92]) is another time a
DEEP HEADER Inspection -
This looks like a simple mistake rather than a deliberate attempt at a
deep check. You should file a bug r
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:42:07 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> WTF - Received: from daves-air.home ([1.125.7.92]) is another time a
> DEEP HEADER Inspection -
This looks like a simple mistake rather than a deliberate attempt at a
deep check. You should file a bug report.
Am 13.05.2016 um 15:42 schrieb Reindl Harald:
WTF - Received: from daves-air.home ([1.125.7.92]) is another time a
DEEP HEADER Inspection - What about score not well thought rules which
are even not worth a decription not higher than 0.5?
3.7 FSL_HELO_HOME No description available
sco
WTF - Received: from daves-air.home ([1.125.7.92]) is another time a
DEEP HEADER Inspection - What about score not well thought rules which
are even not worth a decription not higher than 0.5?
3.7 FSL_HELO_HOME No description available
score FSL_HELO_HOME2.641 3.722 2.641 3.722
29 matches
Mail list logo
