isunderstood the question
> ==John ff
> On 3 Jun 2016, at 17:23, Andy Balholm <mailto:a...@balholm.com>> wrote:
> Where is your mail server hosted. URIBL blocks queries from some cloud
> providers (including DigitalOcean) unless you have a subscription. For a
> while I h
I was using unbound as a local resolver. All queries were going to 127.0.0.1,
and there was no forwarding set up.
Andy
Where is your mail server hosted. URIBL blocks queries from some cloud
providers (including DigitalOcean) unless you have a subscription. For a while
I had a mail server hosted on DO, and I was paying more for my URIBL
subscription than for my hosting.
Andy
I have gotten a few responses now on the spamass-milter mailing list, but none
of them is from a project member or maintainer.
I have put a copy of the spamass-milter source at
https://github.com/andybalholm/spamass-milter. Feel free to file issues or pull
requests there. If/when a spamass-milt
Yes, I eventually discovered -a in the help text. But it’s not in the man page.
I sent a mail to the spamass-milt mailing list (and the maintainers) first, and
got no response. It was the first post to that list since September 2014.
Andy
I know about the 0.4.0 release in 2014 (almost two years ago). But nothing has
happened since then, except the filing of a couple of issues that have not been
responded to.
The only real issue I have run into is that the -a flag is not documented on
the man page. If it looked like the project w
Where are those updates? There is nothing less than 20 months old at
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/spamass-milt/?root=spamass-milt
Is this the Fedora changelog? It talks about upstream, and mentions Fedora 22.
Andy
> ...some other headers to be pushed to mail SA generates
What do you mean?
Andy
Spamass-milter or spamass-milt
(http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/spamass-milt/) seems to be the de-facto
standard for using SpamAssassin as a milter for Sendmail or Postfix, but it is
woefully under-maintained. (The security problem mentioned on
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Integrate
On Aug 7, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> (1) putting that many domains on a single host is just begging for that host
> to have a catastrophic failure (as opposed to putting that many domains on a
> local (re)director which servers as a proxy, a la mod_proxy_html mode…)
Judgi
This particular spammer just re-did the format of their emails, probably to get
around the rules that we’re working on. Do they read the spamassassin-users
list? (I can tell it’s the same spammer, since the return address in Dundrum,
Ireland, is the same as some of the earlier ones, and the styl
On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Andy wrote:
> I have no idea whether I have shell access. I don't even know what that
> is. Sorry.
Shell access means being able to log into their server and get a command
prompt, so that you can do configuration that isn’t supported by their control
panel.
Lookin
On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Axb wrote:
> Suggest you use a local DNS resolver instead of some third party which is
> getting in your way.
Good idea. I installed unbound, and configured it to not use Google’s
nameservers (which were the ones that were blocked). Now uribl seems to be
working.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 12:00 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> Can some fresh samples be posted to pastebin?
http://pastebin.com/DWiTYmPN is my complete collection of 24 spams with this
pattern received this week. Collect them all!
On Aug 5, 2014, at 11:16 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> It can hit on embedded phone numbers, which are, strictly speaking, valid
> hexadecimal strings...
> I suspect it's hitting on all those dates as well, and needs some more
> tightening.
In the spams I’m looking at, all the hex strings are 32 c
On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:48 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> Unfortunately the masscheck pages' links to SVN got broken in the recent
> rebuild.
>
> That rule lives here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_misc_testing.cf?view=log
>
> It should be part of th
On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> There's already a rule for this sort of thing in the sandbox.
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140804-r1615505-n/HEXHASH_WORD/detail
How do I find the actual rule that the page is about?
On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> Saw the following SPAM:
>
> http://pastebin.com/eLm1iRpN
That’s the same group of spams that I just posted a rule for, but I’m looking
at the repeated numbers in the last paragraph.
The last few days, I’ve been getting a lot of spams that have a similar
pattern. They are plain-text messages, and each one ends with a paragraph from
a restaurant review (apparently to confuse bayesian filters), with some numbers
inserted. There is an 8-digit decimal number and a 32-digit hex o
19 matches
Mail list logo
