On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 21:52 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote:
> >
> > Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when
> > rule
> > updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel
> > version
> > since 16 March as shown in the attache
On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote:
Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when rule
updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel version
since 16 March as shown in the attached.
As a volunteer project, there is no ETA. I can tell you my goal is to
get it
Back on the 15th of March this was posted to the list:
"I posted this to the dev and ruleqa mailing lists, then realized that
it is
also relevant to people on this list who run rule updates.
We are in the process of migrating off old machines to a new one for
the
masschecks and rule update proces
On Tue, 2 May 2017, RW wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my
server and I n
On Tue, 2 May 2017 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >>
> >> > I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my
> >> > server and I no
On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:30:01 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote:
Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC.
On 05/02/17 03:54, RW wrote:
How do you know it's because you don't use DMARC.
On 02.05.17 08:09, Marc Perkel wro
On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 17:13 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Is there something on vbounce that does notappl for you?
loading it and settings proper whitelist_bounce_relays should hit all
bounces that did not come as response to mail from your systems...
On 01.05.17 19:11, Martin Gregorie w
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server
> and I noticed that there are two sets of scores.
>
> Is this expected?
50_scores is handco
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server
and I noticed that there are two sets of scores.
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 2.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 2
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server and I
noticed that there are two sets of scores.
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 2.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 2.5
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L4
Am 02.05.2017 um 17:09 schrieb Marc Perkel:
>
>
> On 05/02/17 03:54, RW wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:30:01 -0700
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
>>> problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC.
>> How do you know it
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server
and I noticed that there are two sets of scores.
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 2.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 2.5
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L4 1.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPI
On 30 Apr 2017, at 10:17, David Jones wrote:
99_mailspike.cf
---
shortcircuit RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5 on
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 -3.2
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 -2.2
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 -1.2
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL -0.82
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL 1.2
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L2 0.2
sco
On 05/02/17 07:14, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 5/1/2017 10:30 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC. I don't know a
lot about it but is there some simple way I can get around this? Kind of
a p
On 05/02/17 03:54, RW wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:30:01 -0700
Marc Perkel wrote:
Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC.
How do you know it's because you don't use DMARC.
The rejection message specified
> Perhaps there's something in amavisd-new that can't cope with the
> dkim headers and has done something that breaks SA's header parsing.
> This wouldn't necessarily show-up in the delivered email.
Indeed. amavisd+SA says:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.763 tagged_above=2 required=4
tests=[
On Tue, 2 May 2017 14:04:48 +0100
RW wrote:
> > 64 KB - have you seen typical headers from microsoft these days as
> > well as others?
>
> They are much smaller than that. It remains to be seen whether this
> limit is causing the OPs problem.
And I don't think it is. The 64k limit doesn't se
On 5/1/2017 10:30 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC. I don't know a
lot about it but is there some simple way I can get around this? Kind of
a pain in the rear.
Marc,
This probably
On Tue, 2 May 2017 14:14:19 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
against DoS type situations."
> >
> >
> > That's the limit for a specific header. The relevant limit here is
> > the limit for total headers of 64k.
>
> that's both too low and makes it easiy to bypass SA
It wouldn't make it bypass SA
On Tue, 2 May 2017 12:42:52 +0200
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
>
> > But the real question is: Why is SA not seeing all the headers?
>
> Looking at the archives, I find this:
> https://lists.gt.net/spamassassin/users/172198
>
> "Specifically, I have been adding characters an
On Mon, 01 May 2017 12:26:55 -0400
micah anderson wrote:
> internal_networks 10.0.
>
> but things are not shortcircuiting, you can see it is finding the
> relay as trusted and internal in this line:
>
> Apr 24 15:32:38.862 [29876] dbg: received-header: relay 10.0.1.163
> trusted? yes internal?
On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:30:01 -0700
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
> problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC.
How do you know it's because you don't use DMARC.
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> But the real question is: Why is SA not seeing all the headers?
Looking at the archives, I find this:
https://lists.gt.net/spamassassin/users/172198
"Specifically, I have been adding characters and addresses to the list of
email addresses in the To: header to see at what p
Hi!
I'm using SpamAssassin in an amavisd-new/Milter setup.
Recently, I found some mails from a mailinglist, which contained a
whopping 48 identical (!) DKIM Headers - in some cases the amount of
headers would exceed 32KB!
SpamAssassin was tagging these mails as spam, since it couldn't see
Date:/S
24 matches
Mail list logo
