On 2016-11-22 14:54, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why it's scored so heavily? Would it be a bad idea
> to just drop it down to -1.5 or something?
I score it as 0, and I think a number of others on this list (with much
more expertise than me) do the same.
--
Please *no* private Cc
Hello folks
New here :)
I'm running Spamassassin v3.4.1 here on an headless Ubuntu 16.10 server
together with Monit (and Postfix of course). Each time server restarts,
Monit says first that the spamd process is not running (no PID) but in
three minutes later it says the opposite, that it is b
I get a lot of spam that passes the RP_MATCHES_RCVD test; it wouldn't
make it into my inbox otherwise. I see the scoring recently got bumped
to -3.0, which makes false negatives even more likely.
I'm not expert enough in the nature of spam to really understand why
this test is so strong, nor to fe
I'd like to ask if SA scoring would be affected by potential changes in
the envelope fields (which presumably depends on when in the mail flow
SA is used, Postfix in this case):
* content_filter when receive_override_options=no_address_mappings (sent
to filter via SMTP)
* content_filter when
On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Larry Starr wrote:
> For the past few days my daily "sa-update" job has been failing:
Please do not post tiny styled HTML messages. While 9pt text may look great on
your system, forcing that horrendous choice on others should be avoided.
On *my* screen with my eyes
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:18:14 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2016, at 0:48, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> > 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 fo
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 18:34:05 bOnK wrote:
> On 22-11-2016 18:22, Larry Starr wrote:
> > Has there been a mirror change that I've missed?
>
> > For the past few days my daily "sa-update" job has been failing:
> I don't know if this has anything to do with your problem, but there is
> a s
On November 22, 2016 3:45:10 PM Nicola Piazzi
wrote:
Ok seems that rbl are disabled but it seems that uribl check, is correct ?
yes, if you like to not test urls see perldocs again and or default cf
files for example on that
On 22-11-2016 18:22, Larry Starr wrote:
Has there been a mirror change that I've missed?
For the past few days my daily "sa-update" job has been failing:
I don't know if this has anything to do with your problem, but there is
a sync problem with the master and slave DNS servers.
--
b.
Has there been a mirror change that I've missed?
For the past few days my daily "sa-update" job has been failing:
Update available for channel updates.spamassassin.org
channel: no 'mirrors.70_sare_adult.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net' record found,
channel failed
channel: no 'mirrors.70_sare_baye
On 22 Nov 2016, at 0:48, Pedro David Marco wrote:
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...
I'
On 2016-11-21 14:27, @lbutlr wrote:
> It’s unclear why you are doing this, but if you want to run SA after
> delivery then the time to do that is in your LDA. *HOW* to do that,
> depends on your LDA. If you are using dovecot, then you can call SA
> from sieve. If not, you can setup procmail as an
Ok seems that rbl are disabled but it seems that uribl check, is correct ?
Nicola Piazzi
CED - Sistemi
COMET s.p.a.
Via Michelino, 105 - 40127 Bologna - Italia
Tel. +39 051.6079.293
Cell. +39 328.21.73.470
Web: www.gruppocomet.it
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Benny Pedersen [mailto:m...@ju
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:48:29 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
> 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
