There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already dynamically
returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
completely redundant and should be removed.
BEGIN {
LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
my $pms = shift;
my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
On 27 Nov 2019, at 06:52, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
> 0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham
Plenty of spam and ham learned
> 0.000 0 1553643652 0 non-token data: oldest atime
Oldest data is
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:59:47 +0100
Tobi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was
> not running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running
> with --debug I found tha
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:00:26 +0100
Tobi wrote:
>
> Issue could occur if trusted/internal networks is not set properly and
> the message contains a non-smtp received header with a public IP. Like
> for example could occur if the message is sent via lmtp. Then the
> received header does not contai
Hi Benny
yeah your links definitely show massive abuse of mta header/body checks :-)
But nonetheless mta header checks are way more performant and efficient
than such checks in a filter software. As long as the header you check
is used for a kill-shot its best place still is the mta header checks
On 2019-11-27 17:56, Philipp Ewald wrote:
we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone
(spammer, other mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to
Yes?
trustness
https://www.techiepark.com/tutorials/blocking-spam-using-postfix-header_checks-and-spamassassin/
bad e
Hi Philipp
> or why should someone (spammer, other mailserver with outgoing
> spamfilter) set this Flag to Yes?
I would not think about the spammers here too much but more about a
misconfigured SA on sending side? Or the admin added a fancy rbl list
which suddenly stops working and returns a hit
On 2019-11-27 17:15, Tobi wrote:
Philipp,
Think you should ask yourself the following question: do I trust the
spam result from a remote server? If yes then why using a spamassassin
rule and not straight-out reject such mails on mta (header check)? And
if you do not trust the remote server then
Hi Tobi,
we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone (spammer, other
mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to Yes?
but like RW wrote:
If you want to
match on such a header you need to rewrite it before SA sees it.
i thought shortcircuit will test before any ot
Philipp,
Think you should ask yourself the following question: do I trust the
spam result from a remote server? If yes then why using a spamassassin
rule and not straight-out reject such mails on mta (header check)? And
if you do not trust the remote server then why using its spam decission
at all
Hi Kevin
sorry for sending offlist the first time :-)
> Have you been using that change in production?
Yes I changed it in my prod perl file today. Works so far for the last
couple of hours.
Issue could occur if trusted/internal networks is not set properly and
the message contains a non-smtp r
After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and trunk,
it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure your
fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
Have you been using that change in production?
Regards,
KAM
On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
>
On 27.11.19 15:52, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
pamir:~ # sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 1645
Ie:
pamir:~ # sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 164549 0 non-token data: ntokens
0
On 26 Nov 2019, at 08:11, Philipp Ewald wrote:
we have "old customer" (with historical terms) there have forwarding rules for
any mail and we are not allowed to set SPAM Filter rule or to change the forwarding rules.
On 26.11.19 13:22, @lbutlr wrote:
Forwarding spam is a good way to be black
Hi,
is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was not
running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running with
--debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
_LASTEXTERNALIP_ is
16 matches
Mail list logo
