spamassas...@linkcheck.co.uk wrote:
The code below is found in several places online and for some months I
have been trying to get it to work, but whatever I do it flags up Fail
even if the source is good. Typically I have been concentrating on
gmail: from known good contacts I always get NOT
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:17:34 +0100
RW wrote:
> Edit the rules and replace DKIM_VERIFIED with DKIM_VALID_AU.
I would still score these low for a while to make sure there
aren't any FPs. I think all of those organizations are using DMARC
rather than DKIM.
The difference is that under DMARC sub-d
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:55:43 +0100
SA wrote:
> Thanks, RW.
>
> > This can only be hit if DKIM_VERIFIED is not hit. What DKIM result
> > are you seeing?
>
> This is direct from a gmail account with DKIM-Signature set to
> d=gmail.com and Authentication-Results saying dkim=pass. Received-SPF
>
Thanks, RW.
This can only be hit if DKIM_VERIFIED is not hit. What DKIM result are
you seeing?
This is direct from a gmail account with DKIM-Signature set to
d=gmail.com and Authentication-Results saying dkim=pass. Received-SPF
also Pass.
If the email is passed through a third-party netwo
Thanks, Martin. That will take a little more time than I currently have
but I'll certainly try it in a few days' time.
--
Dave Stiles
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:47:54 +0100
spamassas...@linkcheck.co.uk wrote:
> The code below is found in several places online and for some months
> I have been trying to get it to work, but whatever I do it flags up
> Fail even if the source is good. Typically I have been concentrating
> on gmail: fro
Am 14.06.2016 um 14:33 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:40:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
when "uridnsbl" is wrong and don#t work the first paragraph just
needs to be removed
It's not wrong, uridnsbl and urirhsbl are different types of lookup. The
former targets spammer controlled web & dns
It appears that there are multiple instances of Perl installed after using CPAN
to do the install of Pyzor. See below. What's the best way to handle this
delete the old or new? The older directory seems to have more files. perl
-E'say for
@INC'/usr/local/lib64/perl5/usr/local/share/perl5/usr/l
On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:47 +0100, spamassas...@linkcheck.co.uk wrote:
> The code below is found in several places online and for some months
> I have been trying to get it to work, but whatever I do it flags up
> Fail even if the source is good. Typically I have been concentrating
> on gmail: from
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:56:50 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> On 6/14/2016 8:33 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > that is just what I would like to know: If OCR produces results
> > good enough
> > for BAYES and other rules.
> >
> > I don't think there's difference between bayes and other rules.
> > I
The code below is found in several places online and for some months I
have been trying to get it to work, but whatever I do it flags up Fail
even if the source is good. Typically I have been concentrating on
gmail: from known good contacts I always get NOTVALID_GMAIL (I have
reduced the scores
zen.spamhaus.org
bl.spamcop.net
b.barracudacentral.org
dnsbl.inksystems.com <-- private internal one derived from honeypot email
address we have.
I have disabled dnsbl.sorbs.net as they are too aggressive for our purposes,
they block a lot of Gmail et al, which a lot of our customers and vendors
On 6/14/2016 8:33 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
that is just what I would like to know: If OCR produces results good
enough
for BAYES and other rules.
I don't think there's difference between bayes and other rules.
It's also possible that BAYES would have better results with misread
charact
Sure the OCR results are not very precise. But could we imagine that
they are pushed in a part of the message that will not go through Bayes?
where do you want to push the ORC'ed test, if not back to SA to check other
rules like bayes?
On 14.06.16 13:50, Olivier wrote:
To a part that would do
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:40:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> use
>
> urirhsbl BLAH uribl.thelounge.net. A
> or
> urirhssub BLAH uribl.thelounge.net. A 127.0.0.2
>
> instead of
> uridnsbl
>
> so no "as said the syntax seems to be correct" it is NOT
Am 14.06.2016 um 13:46 schrieb Heinrich Boeder:
Hi Folks,
I have been on this list for quiet some time now and the topic "DNSBL"
was discussed pretty often, but I was still wondering which DNSBLs you
guys use for your mail environment.
So here are my questions: Which DNSBLs do you use? Which
Hi Folks,
I have been on this list for quiet some time now and the topic "DNSBL"
was discussed pretty often, but I was still wondering which DNSBLs you
guys use for your mail environment.
So here are my questions: Which DNSBLs do you use? Which one can you
suggest the most?
Kind Regards,
Am 14.06.2016 um 12:34 schrieb Tom Hendrikx:
On 14-06-16 11:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.06.2016 um 22:53 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 13.06.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Axb:
HA! take a look into list and first thing you find is the moaner needing
help coz he so smart he looks at ANCIENT /3.2.x/d
On 14-06-16 11:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 13.06.2016 um 22:53 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>> Am 13.06.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Axb:
>>> HA! take a look into list and first thing you find is the moaner needing
>>> help coz he so smart he looks at ANCIENT /3.2.x/doc instead of
>>
>>> https://spamassa
Am 13.06.2016 um 22:53 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 13.06.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Axb:
HA! take a look into list and first thing you find is the moaner needing
help coz he so smart he looks at ANCIENT /3.2.x/doc instead of
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_UR
20 matches
Mail list logo
