On 2021-04-25 01:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
Machine B gives: 1.0 FSL_BULK_SI
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no
Unsubscribe
Machine B gives: 1.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no
Unsubsc
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
And if you want to test your rules against a corpus rather than
testing against a few one-off spamples, then look into setting up a
local masscheck instance. You don't need to upload the results to SA,
but it will give you a good overview of how a rul
And if you want to test your rules against a corpus rather than
testing against a few one-off spamples, then look into setting up a
local masscheck instance. You don't need to upload the results to SA,
but it will give you a good overview of how a rule behaves against
multiple messages.
I'm
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
On 2021-04-23 05:41 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 16:28 -0400, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm experimenting with writing a library of my own SA rules and
scores.
Treat this like any other code development project: use a rule
development
On 2021-04-23 05:41 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 16:28 -0400, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm experimenting with writing a library of my own SA rules and
scores.
I do this on a separate computer, which has Spamassassin installed but
not linked into anything else. It also has a cop
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, RW wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:52:40 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule:
body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based
IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i
I'm wondering if there is a good
default spamassassin DO scan rfc1918, but there is no rbl that lists ips
this is not true. SpamAssassin contains code to avoid querying DNS lists
against RFC1919 ranges.
internal_networks 192.168.0.0/16
don't do this. Only your mail relays (mx backups and submission servers),
should be in i
>default spamassassin DO scan rfc1918, but there is no rbl that lists ips
>in rfc1918, its a dns waste to test
>
>internal_networks 192.168.0.0/16
>trusted_networks 192.168.0.0/16
Yes this are done with my own ranges but still the same issue. Sending mail
from own domain
Will received as sp
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:32:09 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
addresses.
>
> I still think that DMARC check should be done on edge of internal
> network, not anywhere behind it.
It's not about that, it's about whether or not you apply it to
-> ->
"&& !ALL_INTERNAL" does allow the sligh
>> On 21.04.21 00:11, RW wrote:
>> >Anything that enters through through the remote trusted network
>> >and hits ALL_TRUSTED will almost certainly pass whatever
>> >authentication mechanism are set-up for the domain.
>> >
>> >The difference between ALL_TRUSTED and ALL_INTERNAL will likely be
>> >s
On Sat, 2021-04-24 at 03:22 -0700, Yuri wrote:
> All messages from the FreeBSD mailing list are labeled as 'SPF check
> fail'.
>
> Here is the message:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=224393
>
> People said that SA does this by mistake:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
On 24.04.21 03:22, Yuri wrote:
All messages from the FreeBSD mailing list are labeled as 'SPF check fail'.
Here is the message:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=224393
it's the encapsulated message, but the first header from included message:
Received: from mail0.{redacted
Headers of original mail, for reference :
Received: from mail0.{redacted}.com (mail0.{redacted}.com [198.144.192.41])
by mail1.{redacted}.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id 13MHIACI036176
for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from owner-ports-committ...@freebsd.org)
Received: from m
Replied to Yuri directly,
This could result of not having internal_networks set.
mail2.{redacted} considers mail1.{redacted} to be an external server - thus
checking the SPF record for freebsd.org against the IP address of
mail1.{redacted}
Paul
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 11:45, Antony Stone <
anton
On Saturday 24 April 2021 at 12:22:15, Yuri wrote:
> All messages from the FreeBSD mailing list are labeled as 'SPF check fail'.
I would firstly observe that you (or whomever runs mail0.{redacted}.com) are
running SpamAssassin version 3.3.1 (eleven years old now), so therefore i
wonder how up-t
All messages from the FreeBSD mailing list are labeled as 'SPF check fail'.
Here is the message:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=224393
People said that SA does this by mistake:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255356
Is it a mistake? A bug in SA? Or can
18 matches
Mail list logo
