+1
BTW, I do use sa-update for one of my installations.
/rolf
senders - IPs.
Greylists also uses DBs like this.
So, what do we have to waste resources on tons of rules, tons of perl
code, tons of regex if we know that 80% is spam?
Yes, why do you think the world spends so much resources on the spam
problem if the solution would be so easy to implement...?
/rolf
On 11/2/11 7:04 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:27 +0100, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Can the bayes_ignore_header value contain wildcards? Like:
bayes_ignore_header X-Something-*
Going by the M::SA::Conf docs, wildcards are not supported. A quick look
at the code confirms
Hi, all,
running:
SpamAssassin version 3.3.1
running on Perl version 5.8.8
Can the bayes_ignore_header value contain wildcards? Like:
bayes_ignore_header X-Something-*
According to Google, this question has been asked before, but I couldn't
find an answer to the question.
/rolf
e thing to have if you don't want to RTFM but you can send SMTP
just fine right from your Backspace-assigned IPs.
I'd take warnings about possible bad reputation of IP addresses serious,
from whoever they come.
/rolf
SPF/DKIM.
my company is offering such a service, contact me off-list if you're
interested.
Regards,
/rolf
your Exchange users? If so, any inbound spam that carries
an internal name as sender address is accepted and delivered... But
maybe I just simply don't understand the way your whitelisting setup works.
/rolf
On 1/19/11 2:10 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:37:07 +0100
"Rolf E. Sonneveld" wrote:
I agree with you, looking at my own personal situation. However, many
mail admins (and maybe you too) are responsible for the e-mail
handling of many (tens/hundreds/thousands
On 1/18/11 11:02 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:33 +0100
"Rolf E. Sonneveld" wrote:
RFC821/RFC2821/RFC5321 points out that a client has to wait a minimum
of 30 minutes before a retry attempt should be made,
That's fine. I don't care if an email fro
register themselves with sites, which send a confirmation message to the
customer: the customer is waiting for the confirmation mail and gives up
after a few minutes.
But I think you're right: I've yet to see the first MTA that waits for
24 hours before the first retry is done.
/rolf
Hi, Mark,
On 12/23/10 7:44 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Rolf,
running (soon to be upgraded):
SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
running on Perl 5.8.8
I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particula
On 12/23/10 7:15 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi,
running (soon to be upgraded):
SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
running on Perl 5.8.8
I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particularly at
the
no ambiguous outcome etc.).
Furthermore, the name of the 3rd and 4th of these tests seems to hint
into the directory of ADSP, as policy mechanism added to DKIM? Is it
correct that these tests perform an ADSP DNS lookup?
/rolf
:
Rolf Loudon wrote:
What's a
"sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?
# sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
0.000 0297 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 982365 0 non-t
What's a
"sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?
# sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
0.000 0297 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 982365 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0
20 0 non-token data: last expire
reduction count
Thoughts?
many thanks
rolf.
This message may contain confidential information which is intended only for
the individual named.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this email.
Please
high probability this rule
indicates?
thanks
rolf.
This message may contain confidential information which is intended only for
the individual named.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this email.
Please notify the sender immediately by email if you
ram schrieb:
> I got this spam mail that was actually in a DNSWL
>
> https://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/fn.txt
>
> How can I report this.
Reports go to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regards,
rolf
that would be better.
thanks
rolf.
Gino Cerullo schrieb:
>
> On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote:
>
>> Gino Cerullo schrieb:
>> [...]
>>> Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for
>>> 'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that i
aybe there is. Doesn't SA score SOFTFAIL with more than 1 point?
regards,
rolf
begin:vcard
fn:Rolf Kraeuchi
n:Kraeuchi;Rolf
org:Uni Bern;Informatikdienste
adr:;;Gesellschaftsstr. 6;Bern;BE;3012;CH
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Postmaster
tel;work:0316313180
tel;fax:0316313865
note:I
I have just noticed the same thing.
Increase in false positives due to that rule telling me the upstream
mail server addresses (which I don't control) have been listed in
combined-HIB.dnsiplists.completewhois.com.
Which is not right for any reason - they ought not be there. Looking
around
Hello
We are seeing a few of these and I can't come up with a good way to
stop them. They currently seem to hit no rules much. Sender changes
all the time of course.
Anyone else getting them?
Regards,
rolf.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:35:02 -04
SARE's General Subject rules files and the Whitelist rules files have
been updated.
R> I get from --lint:
R> Failed to run header SpamAssassin tests, skipping some: Global
symbol
R> "$C" requires explicit package name at
R> /etc/spamassassin/70_sare_genlsubj_eng.cf, rule
SARE_SUB_ACCENT_CHAR
t
/etc/spamassassin/70_sare_genlsubj1.cf, rule SARE_SUB_POOR_CREDIT, line
1.
Serious? Do I disable until fixed?
thanks
rolf.
Tasmania Together 5 Year Review: Have your say :
http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au.
On Dienstag, 20. September 2005 11:03 Paolo Cravero as2594 wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=4.924 tag=-999 tag2=3.5 kill=3.5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2,
NS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=4.056, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.558]
X-Spam-Score: 4.924
nd no particularly convenient way to look at 3.1.
If 3.1 does contain the fix would someone be able to post or send the
relevant lines of the rules? I'd love to incorporate them in the local
config here.
cheers
rolf.
with the rule such that messages from Outlook
appear to have forged headers when in fact Outlook did generate them?
Is the rule correct and perhaps somehow the headers of the mail have
been altered in transit to trigger the rule?
Suggestions appreciated.
thanks
rolf.
rride)
debug: is DNS available? 0
[...]
-
Of course resolv.conf points to a valid nameserver...
Any help appreciated.
regards,
-- rolf
29 matches
Mail list logo
