Re: top and other spammy TLDs

2017-02-20 Thread John Hardin
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Alex wrote: Hi, Some time ago I had put together a rule based on comments from this list, and I've identified a FP that I hoped someone could help me to correct. The full domain in the email was http://www.top-1.biz. However, it's being tagged as if it's "top" as the TLD i

top and other spammy TLDs

2017-02-20 Thread Alex
Hi, Some time ago I had put together a rule based on comments from this list, and I've identified a FP that I hoped someone could help me to correct. The full domain in the email was http://www.top-1.biz. However, it's being tagged as if it's "top" as the TLD in one of KAMs rules and one of mine:

Re: Google anti-phishing code project

2017-02-20 Thread Andrew
I've not come across these before.. I am too interested in how to integrate them in to SA thanks. On 20 February 2017 at 21:56, Alex wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Dianne Skoll > wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500 > > Alex wrote: > > > >> Maybe we're using som

Re: Google anti-phishing code project

2017-02-20 Thread Alex
Hi, On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500 > Alex wrote: > >> Maybe we're using something different. This is the link I was using to >> download the phishing addresses until the other day, when it became a >> dead link: > >> https://aper.svn.sou

Re: Google anti-phishing code project

2017-02-20 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500 Alex wrote: > Maybe we're using something different. This is the link I was using to > download the phishing addresses until the other day, when it became a > dead link: > https://aper.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/aper/phishing_reply_addresses That URL works fo

Re: Google anti-phishing code project

2017-02-20 Thread Alex
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:21:14 -0500 > Alex wrote: > >> https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/ >> It appears to no longer be active, as some time yesterday. > > It's still active. The most recent commit is dated today, a

Re: Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 20.02.17 08:58, David Niklas wrote: I have had a wonderful experience filtering spam with spamassassin. However, within the past few weeks (since feb 7th, I think), I have gotten a number of messages that have been normal but marked as spam. It may be those that I am speaking with and what the

Re: Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread John Hardin
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, David Jones wrote: From: David Niklas However, within the past few weeks (since feb 7th, I think), I have gotten a number of messages that have been normal but marked as spam. URIBL_BLOCKED is the problem. URIBL_BLOCKED is not an indicator for false *positives*. It sho

Re: Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread RW
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:40:15 + David Jones wrote: > >From: David Niklas > > >Feb 18 04:24:46 [spamd] spamd: connection from ulgy_thing > >[127.0.0.1]:38282 to port 783, fd 5_ Feb 18 04:24:46 [spamd] spamd: > >setuid to me succeeded_ Feb 18 04:24:46 [spamd] spamd: checking > >message <201702

Re: Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread David Jones
>From: David Niklas >Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 7:58 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Great spam filtering, until now   >Hello, >I have had a wonderful experience filtering spam with spamassassin. >However, within the past few weeks (since feb 7th, I think), I have gotten >a

Re: Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread Benny Pedersen
David Niklas skrev den 2017-02-20 14:58: AWL,BAYES_00,CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER,FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,RDN S_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED scantime=6.7,size=4240,user=me,uid=1000,required_score=5.0,rhost=ulgy_thing,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=38282,mid=

Great spam filtering, until now

2017-02-20 Thread David Niklas
Hello, I have had a wonderful experience filtering spam with spamassassin. However, within the past few weeks (since feb 7th, I think), I have gotten a number of messages that have been normal but marked as spam. It may be those that I am speaking with and what they do to their mail, then again, ma

Re: Google anti-phishing code project

2017-02-20 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:21:14 -0500 Alex wrote: > https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/ > It appears to no longer be active, as some time yesterday. It's still active. The most recent commit is dated today, and I still have commit privileges. Regards, Dianne.

Re: Custom rule not applied when running Postfix + SA

2017-02-20 Thread Joe Quinn
On 2/20/2017 6:54 AM, aquilinux wrote: Hi all, i noticed that a custom rule i created (in /etc/spamassassin/local.cf ) is not applied in the regular postfix + spamassassin flow but it is when i pipe the mail to spamc or spamassassin. 1) normal flow with postfix spamassassin

Custom rule not applied when running Postfix + SA

2017-02-20 Thread aquilinux
Hi all, i noticed that a custom rule i created (in /etc/spamassassin/ local.cf) is not applied in the regular postfix + spamassassin flow but it is when i pipe the mail to spamc or spamassassin. 1) normal flow with postfix spamassassinunix- n n - 30 pipe