Dojja wrote:
Cami wrote:
A specific message is hitting the following rule:
* 5 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
* [URIs: annealbatross.org]
The sender would like to know how to fix it and i
am unable to find any reference anywhere on the
procedure
about it.
Cami
Jeff Peng wrote:
I'm interested in this reporter.We use spamassassin's partial features,
it's original now,while we should improve it.
Thre are more than a hundred million users are protected under SA here.
A hundred million or a hundred thousand?
Cami
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Cami wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8 165.165.0.0/16 165.146.0.0/16
internal_networks 196.2.50.0/24
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
Yes you are. You're trying to use them as an RBL whitelist, and it doesn't work
that way. You can use them to deal with the
d_networks, and make sure it's not in
internal_networks.
I've tried that already. If i remove 'internal_networks'
completely, RBL looks still occur for the 196.x.x.x range.
Only reason i added the same the data to internal_networks
is because trusted_networks was not working.
Cami
c ip ranges.
From /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
..
# TRUSTED NETWORKS
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8
internal_networks 196.0.0.0/8
..
What am i missing? Regardless of what i try,
"RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL" are getting hit
every time.
Cami
Great. Shouldn't the old one be removed?
Cami
Robert Menschel wrote:
Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Can someone mention whats the difference between:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
Cami
Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Cami said:
it appears that negative rdns lookups are cached for 10 minutes
I think that this depends of a variety of real world factors
which might be very different from published standards.
Published standards (bind/named) is 10 minutes.
Cami
s. From some poking around, it appears that negative rdns
lookups are cached for 10 minutes, up to a maximum of up to 3 hours:
Negative Caching of DNS Queries -> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2308.html
Cami
Cami
Rob McEwen wrote:
Cami wrote
Exactly how is this faster than using a dns caching nameserver?
As I mentioned, (1) artificially long caching times (well beyond TTL) can be
set for both negative and positive return and (2) once cached, the lookup is
not dependent on another 3rd party server
the very same reasons... again... rDNS checks are a bit
"expensive".
Exactly how is this faster than using a dns caching nameserver?
Cami
Michael Parker wrote:
Cami wrote:
SQL simply doesnt scale very well for bayes. We have a serverfarm of
12 spamassassin servers and storing bayes in SQL. We see on average
about 4000 queries per second. The MySQL server has been optimized
to hell and back and is running on high-end hardware
igh-end hardware,but just simply
doesnt scale as more and more mail begins to roll in.
Cami
llion mails per month, you do the math ;)
If anyone is interested in the patch(es), i'll doubt he
would mind.
Cami
ect a X-Header field which states whether the remote/
connecting host talks ESMTP or straight SMTP and can
then ofcourse get SpamAssassin to score highly on this.
Can anyone either confirm or deny this? (perhaps
looking/digging through their spam/ham corpus?)
Regards,
Cami
17 matches
Mail list logo
