On 21.12.22 15:48, Joey J wrote:
Thank you for pointing me in the better direction.
Since not many people are typing these types of email , I could do the one
off rule and it would be manageable.
But in better seeing the welcomelist_from_spf option, I think this will be
my first try.
welcomelis
I will not engage in furthering this conversation. Sad there seems to be
some toxicity here.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:46 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 22.12.22 um 01:36 schrieb Shawn Iverson:
> > I already build my own rpms
>
> so use them
>
> > This is not for my use
>
> so what's the point
I already build my own rpms. This is not for my use. Sorry if trying to
provide a helpful tid on cpan as described in the SA release was wrong.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:34 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.12.22 um 21:43 schrieb Shawn Iverson:
> > I agree with you on that. In my specific use
If this is on 4.0, perhaps a bug should be opened.
- Original Message -
From: Shawn Iverson
To: SA Mailing list
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:05 AM
Subject: SA build from cpan fails under certain conditions
Hello SA Users,
Just posting this in case anyone else r
Hello.
(one of) the Fedora spamassassin maintainers here. I thought I'd chime
in with some information...
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:48:13AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 7:59 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154501
> >
> > https://b
Kris & Greg,
Thank you for pointing me in the better direction.
Since not many people are typing these types of email , I could do the one
off rule and it would be manageable.
But in better seeing the welcomelist_from_spf option, I think this will be
my first try.
I appreciate all of your points
I agree with you on that. In my specific use case I need fallback to cpan
when rpms aren't available.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 3:32 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 21.12.22 13:05, Shawn Iverson wrote:
> >sudo cpan Mail::Spamassassin seems to only build properly on recent
> flavors
> >of rhel
On 21.12.22 13:05, Shawn Iverson wrote:
sudo cpan Mail::Spamassassin seems to only build properly on recent flavors
of rhel under very specific conditions, notably:
I recommend you NOT install spamassassin via CPAN, but from package.
perhaps the one in redhat or in EPEL
--
Matus UHLAR - fantom
Joey J wrote:
Thanks Everyone.
Within all of the responses, I will try to reply here.
1. The legit sender will talk about big numbers because of the real
things he is involved with so big numbers is still a valid method to
score, just not in this case.
2. The SPF record is set to fail on no mat
The other thing that should be done for j...@company.com is that
company.com should sign their mail with DKIM, and then you can
welcomelist_from_dkim *@company.com
I find that many companies I deal with that produce semi-spammy mail
(most big companies :-) have DKIM signatures and I can welcome
Thanks Everyone.
Within all of the responses, I will try to reply here.
1. The legit sender will talk about big numbers because of the real things
he is involved with so big numbers is still a valid method to score, just
not in this case.
2. The SPF record is set to fail on no match, however this d
On 2022-12-21 at 12:02:27 UTC-0500 (Wed, 21 Dec 2022 18:02:27 +0100)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
is rumored to have said:
[...]>
> On 21.12.22 11:19, Henrik K wrote:
>> It will pass welcomelist_auth, since there is SPF_PASS, which you missed:
>>
>> SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
Hello SA Users,
Just posting this in case anyone else runs into similar trouble...
sudo cpan Mail::Spamassassin seems to only build properly on recent flavors
of rhel under very specific conditions, notably:
You are not root
The cpan configuration is set to build specifically using local lib or
On 20/12/2022 23:59, Joey J wrote:
Thanks to Bill and Matus for your responses.
Basically, the client is talking about real money transactions,
airplanes, paypal etc, but he is a legit sender with these often
flagged topics.
Sometimes the message goes through, but by the time you reply 2 or 3
> DKIM_INVALID 0.1 DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid
>
> DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> necessarily valid
>
> HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 0.001 HTML font color similar or identical to
> background
>
> HTML_MESSAGE0.001 HTML
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 08:43:18AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > DKIM_INVALID 0.1 DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid
> >
> > DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> > necessarily valid
> >
> > HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 0.001 HTML fo
16 matches
Mail list logo
