Hi
I run an MTA (Hmailserver) that passes its mail through Spamassassin 3.4.1
on receiving emails. Currently the mail is 'collected' via POP from an
external mail host, then put through SA, then subjects the email to its own
internal anti-spam checks (such as SURBL and DNSBL lookups), and then de
Am 08.06.2016 um 02:56 schrieb Alex:
dislcaimer: i am not affected by such rules because i dsiable anything in
context of RBL and replace it with my own rules as well as i dsiable *any
other* rule which appears to do deep-header testings
Are you saying you've disabled all RBL rules from withi
Hi,
>>> I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score. Doesn't
>>> this seem a bit high?
>>>
>>> I'm already using postscreen to add 4 points to messages received with
>>> zen/sbl with return code 127.0.0.3, but also seeing quite a few
>>> RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS hits, so I'm assuming this
Am 07.06.2016 um 20:39 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 2016-06-07 20:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
and i can not resist to call you a fool since it's completly off-topic
when we talk about *inbound* mail and then go ahead and solve
http://ipv6friday.org/blog/2012/10/ipv6-spam/ - come back when both is
d
On 2016-06-07 20:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
and i can not resist to call you a fool since it's completly off-topic
when we talk about *inbound* mail and then go ahead and solve
http://ipv6friday.org/blog/2012/10/ipv6-spam/ - come back when both is
done
bind9 rpz
done
Am 07.06.2016 um 20:22 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:08:59 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.06.2016 um 19:59 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:46:13 -0400
Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score.
Doesn't this seem a bit high?
I'm already using
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:08:59 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 07.06.2016 um 19:59 schrieb RW:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:46:13 -0400
> > Alex wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score.
> >> Doesn't this seem a bit high?
> >>
> >> I'm already usin
Am 07.06.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 2016-06-07 20:08, Reindl Harald wrote:
[snip]
the problem is with fewer and fewer ipv4 addresses the fallout is
*growing* from day to day
http://ipv6bingo.com/
could not resists here :=)
and i can not resist to call you a fool since it's
On 2016-06-07 20:08, Reindl Harald wrote:
[snip]
the problem is with fewer and fewer ipv4 addresses the fallout is
*growing* from day to day
http://ipv6bingo.com/
could not resists here :=)
On 2016-06-07 19:46, Alex wrote:
http://pastebin.com/6b7MTeYa
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
solution maybe
clear_originating_ip_headers into local.cf
note this is NOT a deap header scanning
no one have created a bug on this so its not a fail
Am 07.06.2016 um 19:59 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:46:13 -0400
Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score. Doesn't
this seem a bit high?
I'm already using postscreen to add 4 points to messages received with
zen/sbl with return code 127.0.0.3, but
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:46:13 -0400
Alex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score. Doesn't
> this seem a bit high?
>
> I'm already using postscreen to add 4 points to messages received with
> zen/sbl with return code 127.0.0.3, but also seeing quite a few
>
Hi all,
I'm curious about the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS rule and its 3.5 score. Doesn't
this seem a bit high?
I'm already using postscreen to add 4 points to messages received with
zen/sbl with return code 127.0.0.3, but also seeing quite a few
RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS hits, so I'm assuming this is the result of th
13 matches
Mail list logo
