On 19 Jan 2018, at 16:17 (-0500), Chip wrote:
Do you mean don't whitelist_auth *@example.com *unless* they have
published spf/dkim?
I can't speak to Dave's meaning (although I value it...) but in fact
whitelist_auth directives only have any effect if the domain has
published SPF or DKIM reco
On 19 Jan 2018, at 20:02 (-0500), jdow wrote:
After your first time being a victim of cyberstalking you'll soon
enough wish your "from" line was as generic as mine. People who put
their full name in the From: line haven't been mugged yet. I spent a
year learning about this 1985-1986.
I think
On 19 Jan 2018, at 10:20 (-0500), Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Empty Message
You're repeating yourself...
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
After your first time being a victim of cyberstalking you'll soon enough wish
your "from" line was as generic as mine. People who put their full name in the
From: line haven't been mugged yet. I spent a year learning about this 1985-1986.
As a byproduct of this habit of mine, when I see a "To:
On 01/19/2018 03:17 PM, Chip wrote:
Okay, trying to understand.
You say:
whitelist_auth *@*.chase.com
whitelist_auth serv...@paypal.com
This would trust emails from any subdomain under chase.com and
serv...@paypal.com that hit SPF_PASS or DKIM_VALID_AU rules.
Okay, got that.
Okay, trying to understand.
You say:
whitelist_auth *@*.chase.com
whitelist_auth serv...@paypal.com
This would trust emails from any subdomain under chase.com and
serv...@paypal.com that hit SPF_PASS or DKIM_VALID_AU rules.
Okay, got that.
But I'm confused when you further expl
On 01/19/2018 02:21 PM, Jeffs Chips wrote:
I would be very interested in knowing what features in SA flag spoofed
email addresses. Knowing the methods used or plugins available to
detect spoofed emails is integral to the project I'm working on.
That is the million dollar question. If we h
On behalf of the Apache SpamAssassin PMC, we are supporting the Google Summer
of Code for 2018.
GSOC is a global program focused on bringing more student developers into open
source software development. Students work with an open source organization on
a 3 month programming project during their b
I would be very interested in knowing what features in SA flag spoofed
email addresses. Knowing the methods used or plugins available to detect
spoofed emails is integral to the project I'm working on.
__
"Perhaps sleep did not evolve. Perhaps it was the thing from which
wakeful
Thanks! FYI for some reason Gmail is classifying these emails as spam.
__
"Perhaps sleep did not evolve. Perhaps it was the thing from which
wakefulness emerged.” -- Matthew Walker, Sleep Scientist
On Jan 19, 2018 3:11 PM, "John Hardin" wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, AJ Weber w
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, AJ Weber wrote:
False Positive
i.e. SA incorrectly classifying a message as SPAM.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C
False Positive
On 1/19/2018 2:55 PM, Jeffs Chips wrote:
I am trying to follow this interesting thread - can someone tell me
what "FP" means?
__
"Perhaps sleep did not evolve. Perhaps it was the thing from which
wakefulness emerged.” -- Matthew Walker, Sleep Scientist
On Ja
I am trying to follow this interesting thread - can someone tell me what
"FP" means?
__
"Perhaps sleep did not evolve. Perhaps it was the thing from which
wakefulness emerged.” -- Matthew Walker, Sleep Scientist
On Jan 19, 2018 12:02 AM, "Pedro David Marco"
wrote:
>
>
> >!~ mat
I too have a plugin written I've been using for a short while from the last
time this was brought up, I too would like to get some spamples of spoofed
From:name emails.
There are a few FP situations, I get around these by seeing what the difference
in between the length of the found email addre
I've got a basic plugin written for this now, but I'd like to do a
litle more testing before I make it widely available. If you have
mail samples (ham or spam) with an "@" character in the name part of
the From field that you're willing to share, let me know.
BTW, I've already run into some fals
On 01/19/2018 09:31 AM, Robert Boyl wrote:
Hi, masters!
I know
[1-9]{1,5} spreadsheets
catches somnething like
23244 spreadsheets
What about 23.244 spreadhseets? How to make the rule consider a dot in
the number?
Thank you!
Rob
https://regex101.com/
\d{1,2}\.?\d{1,5}
--
David Jones
Hi, masters!
I know
[1-9]{1,5} spreadsheets
catches somnething like
23244 spreadsheets
What about 23.244 spreadhseets? How to make the rule consider a dot in the
number?
Thank you!
Rob
Also copy and paste in a reply does not work. Crapware...
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 16:18, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> It turns out that PM does not forward e-mails.
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 16:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 19.01.20
Empty Message
It turns out that PM does not forward e-mails.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 16:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Rupert Gallagher: > Empty Message how many of
> them are expected? what idiotic MUA does that?
Empty Message
Hi Dianne,
Good to hear from you.
I need the dkim/spf lookup features of SpamAssassin. procmail will
filter and dump into folders but AFAIK does not do any kind of spf or
dkim verification. There are stand-along scrips that can do that but
using those are above my pay grade unless someone wants
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:01:13 -0500
Chip wrote:
> I'm tied to a Cpanel/WHM VPS which can't be changed.
That's a problem. It's like having someone require you to play
Hungarian Rhapsody while wearing mittens. I mean sure... maybe it's
possible, but why would you try?
Is there no possibility of
On 01/19/2018 08:56 AM, Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
Em 19/01/2018 11:27, David Jones escreveu:
On 01/19/2018 08:12 AM, Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm new to the list so pardon any stupidity I may say.. lol
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.4.1 with Postfix 3.1.6 on Debian 9.
ii spamassassin *3.
Em 19/01/2018 11:33, Bill Cole escreveu:
These show Bayes learning by the user debian-spamd.
BUT:
root@mailer:~# sa-learn --dump magic
This checks the Bayes DB for the user root.
root != debian-spamd
You need to either run sa-learn as debian-spamd (possibly infeasible)
or make root use
yes, everything you say is accurate and correct.
We are not looking for perfection in the gathering of statistics, only
ballpark.
No one will ever open the bogus, phishing emails because the emails are
not attached to a living person. Once the statistic is collected the
email is automatically de
Em 19/01/2018 11:27, David Jones escreveu:
On 01/19/2018 08:12 AM, Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm new to the list so pardon any stupidity I may say.. lol
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.4.1 with Postfix 3.1.6 on Debian 9.
ii spamassassin *3.4.1-6+deb9u1 * all Perl-based spam
On 01/19/2018 08:30 AM, Chip wrote:
Good question.
Saying why I care about spf and dkim but not spam sounds contradictory,
I know.
The reason is because this project doesn't care if spam arrives, only if
the spam or email (even authenticated properly email) is spoofed.
How are you going to d
Thank you! I see that shortcircuit is already enabled in 320!
I think you really hit on something.
Thanks again!
I knew there was a simple answer.
On 01/19/2018 09:35 AM, David Jones wrote:
> On 01/19/2018 08:24 AM, Chip wrote:
>> Ok point take - I should have mentioned earlier that *part* of
On 01/19/2018 08:24 AM, Chip wrote:
Ok point take - I should have mentioned earlier that *part* of the
reason to stick with SA is because it does spf and dkim checks. My mistake.
Moving on now, David, good suggestions! Enlighten me about the
Shortcirtcuit plugin please. How does one activat
On 19 Jan 2018, at 9:12 (-0500), Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
[...]
I had cleared bayes database with --clear some days ago and had
restarted spamassassin service. Today I saw some autolearning on
mail.log, but all the "dump magic" values are still 0
see: **spamd: result: Y 8 -
DEAR_FRIEND,FREEMA
Good question.
Saying why I care about spf and dkim but not spam sounds contradictory,
I know.
The reason is because this project doesn't care if spam arrives, only if
the spam or email (even authenticated properly email) is spoofed.
We are doing checks on senders and the likelihood of a spoofe
Empty Message
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:12:53 -0300
Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
> >
> I had cleared bayes database with --clear some days ago and had
> restarted spamassassin service. Today I saw some autolearning on
> mail.log, but all the "dump magic" values are still 0
>
>
> root@mailer:~# sa-learn --dump magic
On 01/19/2018 08:12 AM, Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm new to the list so pardon any stupidity I may say.. lol
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.4.1 with Postfix 3.1.6 on Debian 9.
ii spamassassin *3.4.1-6+deb9u1 * all Perl-based spam
filter using text analysis
local.cf:
us
Ok point take - I should have mentioned earlier that *part* of the
reason to stick with SA is because it does spf and dkim checks. My mistake.
Moving on now, David, good suggestions! Enlighten me about the
Shortcirtcuit plugin please. How does one activate it or use it?
The manual gives an exa
On 18 Jan 2018, at 14:52 (-0500), Andy Howell wrote:
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
Your server and command line invocations are using different
configurations.
WHY that is happening is impossible to know without more information
about how you're using SpamAssassin in your mail server. So
On 01/19/2018 08:07 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:49:52 -0500
Chip wrote:
Very well stated. Bravo!
The end point here is to examine the email headers that specifically
refer to dkim and spf signatures. Based on fail or pass, or some
combination in concert with the sender's email addre
Hi guys,
I'm new to the list so pardon any stupidity I may say.. lol
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.4.1 with Postfix 3.1.6 on Debian 9.
ii spamassassin 3.4.1-6+deb9u1
all Perl-based spam filter using text analysis
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:49:52 -0500
Chip wrote:
> Very well stated. Bravo!
>
> The end point here is to examine the email headers that specifically
> refer to dkim and spf signatures. Based on fail or pass, or some
> combination in concert with the sender's email address, they get moved
> into f
On 01/18/2018 05:49 PM, Chip wrote:
Very well stated. Bravo!
The end point here is to examine the email headers that specifically
refer to dkim and spf signatures. Based on fail or pass, or some
combination in concert with the sender's email address, they get moved
into fail or pass folders.
Chip schrieb am 19.01.2018 um 00:49:
The end point here is to examine the email headers that specifically
refer to dkim and spf signatures. Based on fail or pass, or some
combination in concert with the sender's email address, they get moved
into fail or pass folders.
The right thing to do this
On Friday 19 January 2018 at 07:40:07, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> See my post of 25/20/2017 to this list.
My calendar doesn't go that far :(
Antony.
--
I wasn't sure about having a beard at first, but then it grew on me.
Please reply to the l
43 matches
Mail list logo
