On 5/7/2013 12:11 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense
>> was taken were met by reject messages.
> Quite simply put, Benny Pedersen wants you to respect his
> signature, which read
some folks are preachy and sensitive... like those bottom posters who
seem to like telling top posters how wrong they are.
I wouldn't worry about it.
But it was interesting to hear the history of the word "plonk".. that
was cool.
-lee
On 5/7/2013 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> John Hard
no idea, I read emails from both you and him and didn't see anything amiss.
Benny's signature does not parse as English so it's hard to say what it
means.
I wouldn't worry about it.
-lee
On 5/7/2013 8:56 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> Whatever that means.
>
> I think that if someone has cause off
On 4/11/2012 8:23 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, thanks for the info. It certainly explains things. Yeah, SpamAssassin
>> previously used to blaze through mail scans
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
> Hmm, thanks for the info. It certainly explains things. Yeah,
> SpamAssassin previously used to blaze through mail scans (everything
> scanned in less than 3 seconds) on the same hardware. It's annoying
> that Perl is getting slower over time and there's
interesting.
the ipv6 address is correct, spock.dilkie.com was the source of the email.
however, the quoted ipv4 address, 216.191.234.70 is my employer's mail
gateway (Mitel), and I suspect the script grabbed the ip address I used
to send the test message to my server that was relayed to Yves. (i
it's IPv4.5
-lee
On 3/31/2011 1:47 PM, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 31/03/2011 1:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> 'from' dhl.com
>> (come on ups/dhl.. I know SPF is broken, but in this case it would
>> sure help is decide if the sending ip is authorized to send on your
>> behalf)
>>
>> with s
On 3/20/2011 8:48 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 3/20/11 6:04 AM, Matt Elson wrote:
>> body__PILL_PRICE_3
>> /free\s(?:pill|tablet|cap(?:sule|let))s/i
>> tflags __PILL_PRICE_3 multiple
>>
>> Specifically, they're causing spamassassin to run in an endless loop
>> whe
You are confusing servers with *domains*. It's perfectly acceptable that
an outgoing mail server not accept incoming mail but the issue here is
whether is it is valid for a *domain* to be "send-only".
It's an interesting question. For DSN's to work, you need to accept
email for that domain. But is
On 1/19/2011 10:02 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>> The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
>> is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
>> greylisting di
I recently gave up on greylisting after using it for years as well.
Two reasons really, one was the complaints from users (and I found that
they often asked folks to "send mail to me twice" to try and get mail to
"work better" and that was just embarrassing).
The second was that I've found that t
On 11/10/2010 6:32 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 11/10/10 2:45 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 10.11.10 08:23, Per Jessen wrote:
>>> I got the following reject this morning:
>>>
>>> : host mail.example.com[1.2.3.4] said: 550 Dynamic
>>> Style reverse DNS IP=[212.25.14.40].Rejected
:)
love your style.
-lee
On 9/26/2010 8:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> *Might* have been a dev question, but it actually is not. Not even close
> to it. ;)
>
> On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 17:29 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> Use of "goto" to jump into a construct is
Use of "goto" to jump into a construct is deprecated at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.2/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Check.pm line 409
seeing this in a number of places after I upgraded perl to 5.12.
Should I submit a bug report or this already known?
--
-lee
the rule is flagging the fact that the servers are using
non-assigned address space.
On 6/17/2010 2:19 PM, gwilodailo wrote:
Hello all,
I've discovered that some mail between two of my clients (on separate hosts)
is getting flagged as spam, because of this rule (FH_HOST_IN_ADDRARPA). I
On 6/3/2010 12:02 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Helmut Schneider wrote:
>> I then started from scratch and tried with SA 3.2.5. The particular
>> body_tests take only 5 seconds (instead of 30).
>
> As I mentioned before, I noticed this difference myself, and presumed
> it was jus
On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Here's the chuckle
>>
>> Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
>> following message for .
>>
>> Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
>> http://www.
I reported this issue about a month ago and didn't receive a response.
So I set about fixing it myself.
First, I edited the sa-update script to not delete the rules that it
downloaded and was running lint on... I looked at those rules to see if
I could spot the problem, but I couldn't... looked f
Chris,
Do you use sa-compile? I found that made a tremendous difference for me.
-lee
Chris wrote:
> I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam and one
> for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have become
> slower and slower. For instance stats from last nig
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
> scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
> the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process f
Hi Folks,
My nightly sa-upgrade caught this funny error and I cannot figure out...
Mar 25 04:15:45.030 [76697] info: body_0: 1547 base strings extracted in 37
seconds
rules: failed to run FUZZY_OCR test, skipping:
(Timeout::_run: Insecure dependency in open while running with -T
switch
Curious that SPF_FAIL is reported...
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
* 1.5 FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From: starts with many numbers
* 1.9 DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date
*
re back (number
of other changes too). Not sure why the gremlins were banished.
Interesting mystery.
-lee
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Final update folks, sorry for the noise if it's bothersome...
>
> commented out the three offending lines in 72_active.cf and --lint
> passed and I'm
> ie.
>
> header __SUBJ_3DIGIT Subject =~ /\b\d{3}[^0-9]/^M
>
> header __SUBJ_APPROVE Subject =~ /Approve/i^M
>
> header __SUBJ_RE Subject =~ /^R[eE]:/^M
>
> -lee
>
>
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>> no joy.
>>
>> doesn'
Subject =~ /Approve/i^M
header __SUBJ_RE Subject =~ /^R[eE]:/^M
-lee
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> no joy.
>
> doesn't look like the ports version of SA comes with any stock rules
> (nothing obvious in the ports dir tree, the work/ directory had en empty
> 72_active.cf file).
ng lines in 72_active.cf?? Is there an archive I
can download? (I'm thinking of modifying sa-update to comment-out where
it removes the tmp files)
-lee
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 06:45 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>
>
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 18:44 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>> For what ever reason, my sa-update to 3.30 has buggered itself. In my
>> efforts to debug it's now at the situation that SA has no rules to run
>> and I'm getting swamped.
Folks,
For what ever reason, my sa-update to 3.30 has buggered itself. In my
efforts to debug it's now at the situation that SA has no rules to run
and I'm getting swamped.
How, if it's possible, can I tell SA and sa-update to use the 3.2
version of the ruleset? Simply deleting the tree and sa-co
nevermind, it eventually created the directory and jeyring files... not
quite sure how that happened..
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> On getting pgp to work... Following HOWTO at
> http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
>
> "wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-up
On getting pgp to work... Following HOWTO at
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
"wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/GPG.KEY"; worked fine
$ sa-update --import GPG.KEY
gpg: keyblock resource
`/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/secring.gpg': No su
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Are you still having this issue?
>
yes indeed
>
> Wow. That's an incredibly bad idea. Allowing sa-update to install
> Perl, or other, code (--allowplugins) without verifying that the code is
> signed (--nogpg) is pretty risky. If a mirror gets hacked you'll ru
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm not hearing from people in this forum who are saying it works.
> Even those who are SPF evangelists can't point to any significant
> results in either blocking spam or passing ham.
>
Well it's no magic bullet, but nothing is. I use SPF to try and make my
domain less a tar
32 matches
Mail list logo
