On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:38:30 -0400
Kris Deugau wrote:
> header RCVD_IN_XBL eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal',
> 'zen.spamhaus.org.', '^127\.0\.0\.[45678]$')
>
> Why are you (re)defining a near-duplicate of this? Was the stock rule
> as above also misbehaving?
>
> Note that the Spa
On November 3, 2016 11:41:07 AM PDT, Birta Levente
wrote:
>I do not use spamassissin daemon. It's called by amavisd 2.10
>
You're probably better off asking on an amavis list in that case. I have no
experience with amavis.
However, given that it seems to be a lock contention issue, you might s
I do not use spamassissin daemon. It's called by amavisd 2.10
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016, 20:23 Sean Greenslade wrote:
> On October 13, 2016 5:39:50 AM PDT, Levente Birta
> wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >I have postfix with amavisd as content_filter and spamassassin 3.4.2
> >When I enable the TxRep plugin the ma
On October 13, 2016 5:39:50 AM PDT, Levente Birta wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have postfix with amavisd as content_filter and spamassassin 3.4.2
>When I enable the TxRep plugin the mail stay very long in the SA check:
>
>
>Oct 13 15:28:40 wsrv amavis[24727]: (24727-01) SA dbg: locker: mode is
>384
>Oct 13 15:
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>>> I've had to lower the score on my header XBL check because it was
>>> triggering on so many dynamic IPs that were clearly reassigned to new
>>> users, then being blacklisted. I'd appreciate it if anyone c
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:32:00 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
> >MHielder wrote:
> >
> >> > Zitat von Marco :
> >> >
> >> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason
> >> > is that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >> >
Well... I guess that depends on what your definition of legitimate is I
suppose... in my case (for our corporate emails) that would not be considered
legit. Cool interface, but no mater what I typed on the keyboard it displayed
its own search text, and the results were bogus. so...
I just r
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Vincent Fox wrote:
TOP remains at the err... top of abuse heap.
XYZ insights anyone? They have been on my reject list for a long time
This is an interesting statistics page I had not seen before:
https://ntldstats.com/fraud
Hmm. Autoforward them all to the ICANN board m
Indeed, that is what is happening. I have had requests for
overrides. I hate maintaining overrides if I no longer need to
even list the domain. See driver.xyz for example which is legit.
This is an interesting statistics page I had not seen before:
https://ntldstats.com/fraud
[https://nt
Resurrecting thread
TOP remains at the err... top of abuse heap.
XYZ insights anyone? They have been on my reject list
for a long time, but claim to be cleaning it up. Thinking to
drop my shields on this one.
https://gen.xyz/blog/antiabuse
[http://gen.xyz/wp-content/themes/xyz/images/faceb
Unless you have customers/employees/vendors complaining that they are not
receiving legitimate email from that TLD why would you un block it??
On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Vincent Fox
mailto:vb...@ucdavis.edu>> wrote:
Resurrecting thread
TOP remains at the err... top of abuse heap.
XY
Getting tons of this:
top.professional.wo...@ub6eual.cpatter.top
I am Just blocking "*.top"
From: Vincent Fox [mailto:vb...@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:27 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Anyone else just blocking the ".top" TLD?
Resur
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> Zitat von Marco :
>
> UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> that they do charge money for delisting entries.
>
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
On 03.11.16 15:27, RW wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> > Zitat von Marco :
> >
> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> > that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >
> A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
No, not really. What
W dniu 2016-11-03 15:34, MHielder napisał(a):
UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
that they do charge money for delisting entries.
And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this
kind of information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there
I repost this ... someone can help me out?
In the mean time TxRep worked well with sql backend but I prefer the file
Thanks
Levi
Forwarded Message
Subject: TxRep very slow
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:39:50 +0300
From: Levente Birta
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Hi
I hav
> Zitat von Marco :
>
> UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> that they do charge money for delisting entries.
>
> And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this
> kind of information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there is
> no easy way
gladst...@posteo.de skrev den 2016-11-03 08:56:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=- required=4.65
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12=1.629, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_DK=-0.223,
RCV
Hello, I am using SpamAssassin version 3.4.1 with amavisd-new-2.10.1 and
I did not change any of the scoring options of SpamAssassin.
Now I have the problem that some very obvious spammails are not only not
getting detected but also are getting negative spamscores. Is this due
to a configuration
19 matches
Mail list logo
