Hi Martin,
Thanks for the reply.
> Please keep your messages on the SA Users list.
Here's my Cc line on the message you replied to:
Cc: RW , "users@spamassassin.apache.org"
I don't know why it wouldn't go through to the list, perhaps I
shouldn't include spammy terms in the message body (I n
On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 15:37 -0800, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> Thank you John, that does help clarify things a bit. Also thanks to
> Martin - I was typing this message when I received yours, but maybe
> this will answer some of your questions.
>
Please keep your messages on the SA Users list. Apart
Thank you John, that does help clarify things a bit. Also thanks to
Martin - I was typing this message when I received yours, but maybe
this will answer some of your questions.
I get the following results on the message whose tests I included
below:
- spamassassin -t : score 12.6 (BAYES_80)
- spa
On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 13:03 -0800, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> I'm still investigating the problem, but I just noticed that
> "spamassassin" gives the message a score of 12.0, while
> "spamc"/"spamd" (which my mail setup is configured to use) still give
> it a 4.0. So it seems that something more mun
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
Also, it seems that I should have set up a "caching nameserver". I've
attached the report from "spamassassin -t" (with a "URIBL_BLOCKED"
rule).
The important part is that your MTA/SA not use your ISP or hosting
provider's DNS sever, and the local M
Thanks again for the replies.
I'm still investigating the problem, but I just noticed that
"spamassassin" gives the message a score of 12.0, while
"spamc"/"spamd" (which my mail setup is configured to use) still give
it a 4.0. So it seems that something more mundane is going on,
although I'm not s
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:51:01 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> > SpamAssassin usually deals with this problem by looking for
> > authentication in the header, but that's not recorded here.
>
> There is no auth hint in the header when using the submission server.
>
> Received: from [192.168.178.25
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2016, 13:17 + schrieb RW:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
> Marcus Schopen wrote:
>
>
> > The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> > for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
> >
> > Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by MY_S
>From: RW
>Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:35:16 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> That mail server IP above is on a very high number of RBLs:
>> http://multirbl.valli.org/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:35:16 +
David Jones wrote:
> That mail server IP above is on a very high number of RBLs:
> http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/173.230.94.183.html
>
> The edge MX server 104.197.242.163 must not be doing any
> MTA checks of RBLs.
As I already mentioned it's normal to g
>From: frede...@ofb.net
>Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 1:35 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Cc: John Hardin
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>Here's the sample spam:
> From tfioxmns...@mariupol.us Fri Dec 16 20:30:08 2016
> Return-Path:
> X-Spam-Che
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
>
> Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by MY_SERVER_IP
> Received: from dialup-client-IP by smtp-out.myoffice.de
SpamA
12 matches
Mail list logo
