Is there any rules available for catching messages that use the unicode
right to left override in HTML to reverse text (sample attached)?
For instance 'Holle W#8236;dlro' would render as
'Hello World'
I've seen a couple of these sneak thru recently. I don't want to create
a rule to just look
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 15:04, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> > Check out trusted_network section of Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
> > i.e no RBL tests on trusted networks.
> "If you're running with DNS checks enabled, SpamAssassin includes code
> to infer your trusted networks on the fly, so this may not be ne
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 14:14, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Sean Doherty wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> >
> >>Good afternoon,
> >>
> >>I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
> >>through the fl
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:52, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 04:40 PM 11/3/2004, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> >Good afternoon,
> >
> >I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
> >through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed everyone
> >else's upgrade on the list.
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
> through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
> everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
> X-Spam-Checker-
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:16, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible
> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network.
> >So why not set trusted_networks to 127.0.0.1. That way you can
> >be certain that the rule
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
> >coming thru a trusted path?
>
> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable
> the test.
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3406
>
> My /
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:37, George Georgalis wrote:
> skip_rbl_checks 1
> use_bayes 0
>
> noautolearn 1
> use_auto_whitelist 0
> score AWL 0.001
>
> trusted_networks 192.168.
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0.001
Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
coming thru a trusted path?
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Jim Maul writes:
> > This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> > assigned to my server. It has no public IP assigned to it. However, i
> > have a router/firewall i
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 18:24, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 01:07 PM 11/1/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
> > > so the *next* step must be the external MX.
> >
> >My 10.x server is inside a firewall which NATs port 25 so this
> >conclusion is not correct. I imagine that my set
Justin,
> > - if any addresses of the 'by' host is in a reserved network range,
> > then it's trusted
> >
> > However, I would have thought that this would imply that the 10.0.0.53
> > host is trusted and not any servers connecting to it.
>
> The problem is that 10.x is a private net, there
Hi,
I'm looking for some clarification on trusted_networks, the
ALL_TRUSTED rule, and in particular how trusted_networks are
inferred if not specified in local.cf.
Since upgrading to 3.0.1 I have seen an increase in false
negatives, which would have otherwise been caught if not for
the ALL_TRU
Hi,
Spamassassins DCC configuration option "use_dcc" specifies
whether to use DCC or not. However, it appears that
Spamassassin will perform a dcc check if dccifd is available
(if the socket specified under dcc_dccifd_pathor exists) or
use_dcc is set to 1. The same logic is in both 2.64 and 3
13 matches
Mail list logo
