RelayCountry plugin does the work for you. You configure it to score certain
relay countries (looked up by ip extracted from headers, not DNS domain of the
sender) and it just does so. I've used it for few years and it works very well.
(Since I don't expect any traffic at all from i.e. Vietnam,
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>> Furthermore, many copyright laws have "permitted use"
> >>> (sorry, don't know the right english term for it) instead of fair use
> >>> which explicitly says what can be done with a work after its first
> >>> publishing. And this use cann
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Furthermore, many copyright laws have "permitted use"
> > (sorry, don't know the right english term for it) instead of fair use
> > which explicitly says what can be done with a work after its first
> > publishing. And this use cannot be li
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > >> From a legal perspective I will point out that any e-mail you
> > >>
> > >>receive is (at least in the US, but most other countries too)
> > >>considered copyrighted by the sender. Under copyright law the
> > >>sender has the right t
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
> > abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
>
> Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
> such proof??
Honestly - I have no idea since I had not be
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> But I wouldn't count on that, and I think that if you have spammed,
> >> they'd have proof against you...
> >
> >Well... There is no way to contact them if you're listed. Even if it's not
> >level1. Not to mention that they never provide
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
> including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
> doing this now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
> reasons.
Of co
On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote:
> It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-)
> 1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
> In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
> Level 1 addr
On Wednesday, 21 of April 2010, Osax wrote:
> How to I disable spam checking for a domain.
>
> Using spamassassin with mysql.
>
> I have a server with multiple virtual domain,
> I want to disable spam checking on some of them.
>
> Is this possible?
I think you should filter domains at MTA level
On Wednesday, 7 of April 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here's another good list that rates quality.
>
> http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/index.php
The methodology behind this rating is kinda peculiar.
What good is counting messages hit by lists? If I make a DNSBL which just
marks gmail
On Friday, 2 of April 2010, Mathias Homann wrote:
> how would i make a rule that scores for mails that contain an url
> under the TLD .xx but haven't gone through at least one relay in the
> same country?
>
> how would I make a rule that scores for mails that contain an URL that
> is _hosted_ in
On Wednesday, 31 of March 2010, David wrote:
> I've just found that line on the spamc man page:
>
> "-K Perform a keep-alive check of spamd, instead of a full message check."
>
> Someone knows what it means, and what it actually does?
It does what it says. Keep-alive means check means just conn
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
> No, they submit on 25 using TLS+SASL. Would making
> the changes to Firewall, MTA, plus potentially thosands of clients be
> easier than SPF? Would all those angry users screaming because they
> can't send mail at all be a good thing? I don
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
> > IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on different
> > IP-ranges.
> > What about my home workers? I don't have a VPN, they hook in by DSL
> from any number of different providers from outside using SASL/TLS.
They shoul
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > I guess you could start hashing things around
> > with IPTables to redirect certain requests, but once you've done all
> > of this, changed all the clients etc. etc, you are saying this would
> > be *easier* than SPF?
> See Mariusz Kruks sugg
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Well, I guess it depends on your point of view - how difficult is it
> >> to set up an MTA to reject mails pretending to be from
> >> that didn't originate on your MTA?
> > Good question - how would you do it?
>
> Postfix: I would have tw
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:47 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > In a previous post, i have request a information, can i use one
> > central bayes database
> > for a lot of SpamAssassin Server.
> >
> > I have received a answer: Yes
> >
> > But what is the process ?
>
> I use a common bayes database
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:41 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > Your initial question was not "how to not run articular messages thru
> > SA", but "How to score on existing spam headers". That's a different
> > issue.
> I wanted to mark as spam, mais already tagged spam . At the end of the
> day, I
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:24 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > that's just what I said - don't run mail through SA _again_.
> Uh Duh!
>
> Do you think I'll be asking here if I knew how to do it?
Your initial question was not "how to not run articular messages thru
SA", but "How to score on exist
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 23:58 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> 2010/1/14 Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> > well, you either trust SA on secondary MX - then don't run the mail through
> > SA again.
>
> But not all mails go through the 2nd MX ; so this is exactly what I
> want to do: don't run SA if it we
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 21:55 +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> How can I write a rule on the primary server that will automatically
> consider the message as spam is the other server detected it as spam.
>
> I tried:
> header PREVIOUS_SPAM X-Spam-Flag =~ /YES/,
> header PREVIOUS_SPAM X-Spam-Status
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:06 -0300, Walter Breno wrote:
> I'm using postfix with mailscanner to integrate spamassassin and
> clamav, but when spamassassin score a message as spam the subject of
> the message is chagnged to {Spam?} subject and i want to send every
> message that spamassasin mark dire
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> > 1. Listing
> Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
> rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, you have (for example on spam
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> >> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> >> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big sc
that use this RBL by
default. Otherwise noone in their sane minds would use this (at least
not any levels higher than 1).
--
Mariusz Kruk
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:54 +0100, RW wrote:
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a bit hacked of with
> > this 1980's style forum. I'm trying to get to the bottom of an SA
> > issue and this list/forum thing is giving me a bigger headache than
> > SA!
[...]
> And if you think email
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:49 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > You say that you installed the Perl module - you mean the
> > RelayCountry
> > plugin or the IP::Country::Fast module? (needed by the RC module)
> IP::Country::Fast as defined in the requirements.
Does `spamassassin --lint --debug' say a
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:29 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> - "Mariusz Kruk" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:20 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Would somebody please let me know what is required to get it to work
> &g
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:20 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would somebody please let me know what is required to get it to work :) I
> have installed the Perl module and enabled the plugin but it never appears to
> hit :(
The plugin itself only adds metadata to the message. You need to
On śro, 2008-10-22 at 00:01 -0700, TN wrote:
> It seems that almost everyone wants spamassasin before SMTP,
Nh.
> so we can afford to accept spam and filter it after SMTP.
What are you using for local delivery? The most common solution, I think
is to use procmail and just include a rule that
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 14:49 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > > Ok, it's getting better now but all my emails are forwared to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Even those which are not tagged as [SPAM]
> > > I guess i have some troubles with the regular expression.
> > > Can you help me in the syntax
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 06:39 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> hi Marius,
>
> I've check the headers of [SPAM] mails: There's X-Spam-Status: Yes.
OK. So the SA seems to be working.
> I'm sorry but i'm not familiar with regular express:
There is quite a lot of information out there about standard regex
First of all, please don't toppost. It's very annoying.
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 06:04 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> I just tried your last syntax:
> /^X-Spam-Status:[.*](Yes|YES)/ REDIRECT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not my syntax. I pasted it from your mail.
> It doesnt work, all mails are normally deli
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 05:38 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> Ok, it's getting better now but all my emails are forwared to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Even those which are not tagged as [SPAM]
> I guess i have some troubles with the regular expression.
> Can you help me in the syntax issue?
Well... strange.
On wto, 2008-10-21 at 04:58 -0700, mathiasadsl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently running a postfix server and spamassassin under Fedora Core 8.
> Everyhting is OK but i'd like to redirect tagged [SPAM] mails to a mailbox.
>
> I did the following:
>
> #Edit /etc/postfix/main.cf
> header_checks =
On czw, 2008-09-11 at 15:06 +0200, John Wilcock wrote:
> No need for that attitude, we were all newbies once...
Sorry, wasn't meant as an insult or anything like that. Was more like
surprised because I really didn't understand the problem.
> It wouldn't have taken any longer to give the actual so
On czw, 2008-09-11 at 07:53 -0500, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> Folks, I'm trying to capture/grep specific given info from the subject
> output, like this:
>
> #spamassassin -D --lint | grep database
>
> I KNOW that doesn't work, but describes my issue at hand. I've spent an
> hour+ searching for other
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:53:13PM -, Marcin Praczko wrote:
> It is possible add some text to Subject: For example [SPLIST] - to make
> easier set up filter for emails?
What for? This list already gives quite a few headers that should be
enough for filtering.
--
d'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'Yb
Daniel Aquino napisał(a):
Does anyone know actually know where the:
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::RelayCountry"
module is actually ran ?
I dont see anything in /usr/share/spamassassin/* that is doing it...
I don't know about you, but I have:
epsilon:/etc/spamassassin> grep RelayCountry *
init.
I'm having problems with SA provided by debian, version 3.1.7-1.
I run spamc from /etc/procmail. spamd is run with `-x --max-children 5'.
Anyway, the problem is, messages are classified as EMPTY_MESSAGE, which
has description of `Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject: text', which
41 matches
Mail list logo
