Re: relay not detected

Thanks Bill, >. I don't know why some spammers do this sort of lame  >Received fakery, since it fingerprints their mail as spam, but it has >been a fairly common practice for a long time. But SA did not trigger any rule about the forgering...  and debug mode does not showany message about unparse

Re: relay not detected

On 21 Nov 2016, at 17:54, Pedro David Marco wrote: Hi, i have spam emails with a Received line like this: Received: by 9-30-239-23.uocdn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 693A0C56B with (unknown [158.69.130.12]) ; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:06:55 -0300 there is no parsing perl code for lines like this in

Re: Bayes scoring and role accounts

On 11/21/2016 11:27 AM, Karl Denninger wrote: On 11/21/2016 10:12, Karl Denninger wrote: I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and Dovecot for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called via Postfix through spamd with: # # Spam Assassin bayesian filter updat

relay not detected

Hi, i have spam emails with a Received line like this: Received: by 9-30-239-23.uocdn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 693A0C56B with  (unknown [158.69.130.12]) ; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:06:55 -0300 there is no parsing perl code for lines like this in Received.pm module so the relay 158.69.130.12 is neve

Re: Best place to filter spam (x-original-to, no_address_mappings)

On Nov 18, 2016, at 10:18 PM, MRob wrote: > I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the delivery > agent. I know there will be a difference here in terms of the envelope > information but I'm not familiar enough to know the pitfalls of this versus > calling SA from the po

Re: .info TLD gives 2.1?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:00:59 -, Alex wrote: The part I was unsure of was if those 2.1 points were warranted because I've only ever seen it in ham. Now I understand that it is. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/ is a very good source for understanding how rules get the scores they do. It

Re: .info TLD gives 2.1?

Hi, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bill Cole wrote: > On 21 Nov 2016, at 3:18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> On 20.11.16 19:46, Alex wrote: >>> >>> Am I reading this rule wrong, or does the presence of a .info domain >>> enough to warrant a 2.8 score? >>> >>> * 2.1 URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI UR

Re: Best place to filter spam (x-original-to, no_address_mappings)

Can anyone help with this please? On 2016-11-18 21:18, MRob wrote: Hello, I posted this question to the Postfix list and it occurred to me that the SA community could be just as (or more) informative: I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the delivery agent. I know the

Re: .info TLD gives 2.1?

On 21 Nov 2016, at 3:18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 20.11.16 19:46, Alex wrote: Am I reading this rule wrong, or does the presence of a .info domain enough to warrant a 2.8 score? * 2.1 URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"

Re: Bayes scoring and role accounts

On 11/21/2016 10:12, Karl Denninger wrote: > I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and > Dovecot for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called via > Postfix through spamd with: > > # > # Spam Assassin bayesian filter updaters > # > sa-spam unix- n

Re: .info TLD gives 2.1?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 20.11.16 19:46, Alex wrote: Am I reading this rule wrong, or does the presence of a .info domain enough to warrant a 2.8 score? * 2.1 URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"

Bayes scoring and role accounts

I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and Dovecot for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called via Postfix through spamd with: # # Spam Assassin bayesian filter updaters # sa-spam unix- n n - - pipe user=spamd:spamd argv=/usr/l

Re: version.h.pl show stopper

You people were right about $ mount|grep noexec And the tests really should check for that. I'll submit a bug. That apparently was the problem on one of my machines. But for all the rest, this still fails: env - HOME=$HOME LOGNAME=$LOGNAME PATH=/usr/bin:/bin USER=$USER sh -uxe

Re: .info TLD gives 2.1?

On 20.11.16 19:46, Alex wrote: Am I reading this rule wrong, or does the presence of a .info domain enough to warrant a 2.8 score? * 2.1 URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"