On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Another way to do this is to build either a mail archive or a database
> of addresses you've sent mail to and simply add a positive score to mail
> from anybody who you've sent mail to: this needs the following bits of
> code:
So,
Thomas Cameron skrev den 2023-07-15 01:06:
All -
I am suddenly getting hammered by a BUNCH of spam that appears to be
from me.
an what tells you its not you ? :)
It scores low, and even though I keep feeding it to Bayes,
it's still not hitting the threshold to be marked as spam.
lets say s
Loren Wilton skrev den 2023-07-17 00:29:
header __FROM_THOMAS_1 From =~
//i
You can simplify this. The parenthesized grouping was only necessary
when there was more than one possible string, in my case .com and
.net. Since you only have .com you can remove the (:? and ) and make
the regex a lit
> header __FROM_THOMAS_1 From =~ //i
You can simplify this. The parenthesized grouping was only necessary when there
was more than one possible string, in my case .com and .net. Since you only
have .com you can remove the (:? and ) and make the regex a little more
efficient:
> header __FR
> Am I correct? Sorry if I'm being dense. I'm just a sysadmin, not a developer,
> so I'm not super clear on how macros and expansions work in perl.
You have the concepts right. I'd try the rules you posted and see if they seem
to be producing correct results. You can run a spam thru SA with the
On 7/16/23 12:41 AM, Matija Nalis wrote:
So, it fails SPF, but DKIM passes. Meaning, your mail would pass
normally modern servers which check both.
That is predicated on the receiving server(s) not rejecting the message
for SPF failure.
You probably might want to use some nice frontend to vi
On 7/16/23 9:37 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
It does clarify, ...
:-)
... but unfortunately, it doesn't alleviate my concerns.
:-/
I totally understand why SPF et al. are good ideas.
:-)
But I swear, I feel
like they introduce darned near as many problems as they "solve."
I question th
On 7/16/23 00:41, Matija Nalis wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 10:04:18PM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
pass
fail
So, it fails SPF, but DKIM passes. Meaning, your mail would pass
normally modern servers which check both.
If you do not want to receive such status messages, you should update
your
On 7/15/23 23:40, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I assume this just needs to go in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf,
right? Or do I need to do separate stanzas for each domain?
If you want this to work for all users, yes. If you have per-user
rules enabled, then it could go in user_prefs for that user.
On 7/16/23 00:29, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
Does that help clarify (my opinion)?
It does clarify, but unfortunately, it doesn't alleviate my concerns.
I totally understand why SPF et al. are good ideas. But I swear, I feel
like they introduce darned near as many problems as they "solve
On Sat, 2023-07-15 at 22:04 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>
> On 7/14/23 20:30, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
> > On 7/14/23 6:06 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > > I'm trying to figure out how to block this stuff. Something like
> > > "if
> > > it appears to come from me, but it's not actually comin
11 matches
Mail list logo
