McGrail wrote:
On 3/8/2017 9:23 AM, Ruga wrote:
> This is spamassassin...
> We are against mass mailers.
No, we're not and you don't speak for the project. Please do not do so.
In fact, I don't speak for the project but as a long-time project
contributor and chair emeritus, I
This is spamassassin...
We are against mass mailers.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Marc Perkel <'supp...@junkemailfilter.com'>
wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has - or in interested in - a list of legit
mass mailing sources?
There are many domains that remail/deli
+1 :-(
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Benny Pedersen <'m...@junc.eu'> wrote:
:(
RFC-822 is the e-mail standard, without "group addresses". What we do complies
with the standard.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:44:24 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> Prop
Remind me to tell you when I use the iPhone.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On February 9, 2017 3:41:32 AM EST, Ruga wrote:
>Let see who can read amon us.
You spelled "among" incorrectly.
>What is your highes
Speaking of personal attacks against me, how old are you?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Reindl Harald <'h.rei...@thelounge.net'> wrote:
Am 09.02.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Ruga:
>> A large class of wanted email comes with the "undisclosed recipients"
>>
Proper snail mail and e-mail have addresses. Those who do not, are quickly
archived in the trashcan. This is what we do, and it works.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, David Jones <'djo...@ena.com'> wrote:
>From: Ruga
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 8:01 AM
>How
> You really don't know how to read, do you?
Now this is a personal attack from you.
Let see who can read amon us.
What is your highest level of formal education?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09
Stop that. I did not attack anyone.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote:
On 2/8/2017 9:04 AM, Ruga wrote:
> Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as
> standard. Most of them are request for comments.
I'm
ot; parts (like A RR’s) and "experimental" parts (like MB RR’s). On
Feb 8, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Ruga
[](mailto:r...@protonmail.com) wrote: Read the headers of
RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. Most of them are request
for comments. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kev
Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. Most
of them are request for comments.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote:
On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote:
> Not all RFCs are standards.
> Educate yourself
, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:33:49 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
No you don't. You follow your misunderstanding of the actual standard.
RFC822 permits group syntax. It's rig
Not all RFCs are standards.
Educate yourself.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'>
wrote:
On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote:
>I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
what are you talking a
> you can do that for your *personal* mailserver but most admins on that
> planet are also repsonsible for other peoles mailbox and you can't apply
> such interpretation of rules their because your primary job is *to
> receive and deliver emails* and not to reject them and educate the world
> if i
> So, Ruga, if you just want to BCC a bunch of people, what do you propose
> [we] should be put into the To: header?
I would use this or similar:
To: no-re...@your.domain.com
...@primate.net
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
> I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
> From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
> description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an add
PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
> The To header is not RFC compliant.
Yes it is. RFC 5322 even gives the header Cc: undisclosed recipients: ;
as an example in Appendix A.1.3, Group
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for at
least two reasons:
> To: undisclosed recipients: ;
The To header is not RFC compliant.The Subject header exceeds the maximum line
length, being another RFC constraints. It is easy to catch spam this way.
On Tue, Fe
postmas...@irs.gov
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote:
All:
I've got some email deliverability issues I'm trying to work through.
Anyone have a contact for a postmaster for IRS.gov? Likely a 10 minute
issue.
Regards,
KAM
: rwmailli...@googlemail.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:48:29 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> SA runs as follows.
>
> master.cf, last line of section smtp:
> > -o content_filter=spamcheck
>
> spamcheck unix - n n - 10 pipe
> flags=Rq
> use
SA runs as follows.
master.cf, last line of section smtp:
> -o content_filter=spamcheck
spamcheck unix - n n - 10 pipe
flags=Rq
user=spamd
argv=/usr[/sbin/spamc](http://org.OpenServer/share/spamd/bin/spamc)
--dest=127.0.0.1 --port=783 --filter-retries=3 --filter-retry-sleep=2
--headers
--pipe-to
spam that already includes SA headers is getting through without local SA
filtering. Is it posible to tell the local SA to always add its own headers,
possibly taking note of the existence of former SA headers while rewriting them
out of the way?
d the other is to read the standard
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:11:29 -0400
Ruga wrote:
> rfc 822 (the actual standard):
Which as I mentioned is obsolete, but I'll play with you...
> authent
RFC 2822 and 5322 are in the "Standards Track".
RFC 822 is still the standard.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On October 17, 2016 7:11:29 PM EDT, Ruga wrote:
>rfc 822 (the actual standard):
Are you serious? RFC
<>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Paul Stead <'paul.st...@zeninternet.co.uk'>
wrote:
On 17/10/16 23:52, Ruga wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
from = "From:" mailbox-list CRLF ...
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4 .
rfc 822 (the actual standard):
authentic = "From" ":" mailbox ; Single author / ...
mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address / phrase route-addr
addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Ruga <'r...@protonmail.com'> wrote
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:08:20 -0400
Ruga wrote:
> In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
> and therefore the whole mail is au
> From: "Dianne Skoll "
In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
and therefore the whole mail is automatically
rejected as SPAM.
send evidence to protonmail admin:
they will close the account
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Axb <'axb.li...@gmail.com'> wrote:
On 09/27/2016 06:05 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> got spam from it
>
> protonmail.com
> protonmail.ch
>
> is missing in spamassassin
>
>
thank you for teasing us...
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Larry Starr <'lar...@fullcompass.com'> wrote:
That is what I'm doing here.
Rather than attempting that with SA, I wrote a MimeDefang routine to
interrogate the "Magic" number of any office document, block
New tests lead me to the following rule. It works
and is now deployed on production servers.
full B_PLL /(?:(?!<\/p>).){2000}/msi
describe B_PLL Paragraph Length Limit
score B_PLL 1.5
rawbody has a hidden bug: it breaks the above rule too.
I am re-writing all local rules to "full" until "rawbody"
>Looks like a SA bug to me.
At last...
> rawbody __B_PLL /(?:(?!).){999}/msi
Well done.
>> tflags __B_PLL multiple maxhits=1
>Pointless. Why set the "multiple" flag if you're going to set "maxhits=1"??
To really stop at the first match.
> simply having a paragraph longer than 999 characters is
the original.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'>
wrote:
On 03.08.16 12:42, Ruga wrote:
>This is the stripped test. The number of characters is reduced to 72
>from the original 999: make your own choic
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'>
wrote:
On 03.08.16 12:42, Ruga wrote:
>This is the stripped test. The number of characters is reduced to 72
>from the original 999: make your own choice. The attache
> Use a 'full' not 'rawbody' rule.
I do not need to parse the header.
>Why are you doing a "tflags __B_PLL multiple maxhits=1" ?
>If you have "maxhits=1" what's the point of "multiple" at all?
To limit the number of possible matches to a single one.
OK
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Ryan Coleman <'ryan.cole...@cwis.biz'> wrote:
Keep in mind we do not know that. It is better to not reply and wait a few
hours than get Reindl worked up. :)
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Ruga wrote:
>
>
I am AWAY for my office.
Real spam truly unnecessary.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Reindl Harald <'h.rei...@thelounge.net'> wrote:
Am 03.08.2016 um 12:49 schrieb Ruga:
> echo "$( cat /dev/urandom | env LC_CTYPE=C tr -dc 'a-zA-Z0-9
echo "$( cat /dev/urandom | env LC_CTYPE=C tr -dc 'a-zA-Z0-9' | fold -w 999
| head -n 1 )" >example.txt
spamassassin -t -D B_LLL.rule wrote
please pastebin a sample msg
>I would be most grateful if you could spot the but in the above rule.
The *bug*, sorry.
Hello,
We received a new type of spam, twice, and we are not willing to give them a
third chance.
The body includes a long html paragraph (...) of headlines from the news.
The following works at the command line:
perl -p0e 's/((?:(?!<\/p>).){999,}<\/p>)/-->$1<--/msig' example.eml
perl -n0e '/((?
40 matches
Mail list logo
