nning RHEL8 with spamassassin 3.4.6 - so the BLOCKED tests
are not there - but I'm not being blocked from what I can see, so that's not an
issue for now.
Simon.
On Saturday, April 05, 2025 11:57 AEST, Greg Troxel wrote:
"Simon Wilson via users" writes:
> OK, back
with an average 240 valid inbound emails a day hitting SA I am exceeding
the free threshold about 2.5 times over.
Simon
On Saturday, April 05, 2025 13:18 AEST, Noel Butler
wrote:
On 05/04/2025 01:25, Andrew Fragias via users wrote:
Firstly, I wanted to point out that the free service wi
00 sets of queries a day
to stay inside total 10,000 in 30 days free. I'd need about 25,000 a month I
guess.
What's the consensus on how to manage this within spamassassin?
Simon.
On Saturday, April 05, 2025 09:39 AEST, "Simon Wilson via users"
wrote:
Hi Andre
motivation drops to near zero, and benefit, in
monetary terms, may even become negative...”. Yep. For my volume of usage and
with the costs I already incur to provide ‘free’ email to close family, adding
extra costs here means using these BLs drops off the ROI.
Simon
BTW, if I'm doing more
g the same notification?
Simon.
We use invalument.com ... good for the stuff that often slips by. Your mileage
may vary, etc.
-Original Message-
From: Philipp Ewald
Sent: 18 September 2024 11:27
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: non-free Services
Hello,
>The idea is that you can use those services for f
On Thursday, July 04, 2024 02:01 AEST, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Simon Wilson via users skrev den 2024-07-03 15:54:
>
> > header AUTHRES_DKIM_PASS eval:check_authres_result('dkim', 'pass')
> > header USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST eval:check_for_dkim_whitelist_f
On Thursday, July 04, 2024 01:11 AEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 2024-07-03 at 10:19:28 UTC-0400 (Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:19:28 +1000)
> Simon Wilson via users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > On 03.07.24 23:54, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
> >> Simon Wilson via users
Simon Wilson via users skrev den 2024-07-03 14:56:
> Do I also need to disable the normal SA DKIM plugin evaluation, i.e.
> trusting my upstream authres_trusted_authserv only?
both works in paralel, so no need to disable, best results came from
both enabled
its up to you to ad
On 03.07.24 23:54, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
>Simon Wilson via users skrev den 2024-07-03 14:56:
>> Do I also need to disable the normal SA DKIM plugin evaluation, i.e.
>> trusting my upstream authres_trusted_authserv only?
>
>both works in paralel, so no need to disab
Simon Wilson via users skrev den 2024-07-03 14:56:
> Do I also need to disable the normal SA DKIM plugin evaluation, i.e.
> trusting my upstream authres_trusted_authserv only?
both works in paralel, so no need to disable, best results came from
both enabled
its up to you to ad
Simon Wilson via users skrev den 2024-07-03 14:13:
> I don't think SA 3.4.6 on RH8 has AuthRes plugin:
take it from spamassassin trunc, this plugin works on 3.4.6 aswell, but
was not released or tested on it, i have verify it does work
#!/bin/sh
svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/r
On Wednesday, July 03, 2024 22:06 AEST, "Simon Wilson via users"
wrote:
Dave Funk skrev den 2024-07-03 09:29:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
> You say "passing SPF and DKIM" however in the SA rules report it
> clearly says:
> D
Dave Funk skrev den 2024-07-03 09:29:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
> You say "passing SPF and DKIM" however in the SA rules report it
> clearly says:
> DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_INVALID=0.1
>
> So eventho you think 'passed DKIM' SA c
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
> Does whitelist_auth work on From header, or Return-Path? Reason I ask:
>
>
>
> I have two emails from “support .at. wasabi.com”. Due to their emails usually
> triggering KAM rules I have (in
> /etc/mail/
:
Subject: [SPAM] Wasabi Technologies LLC Invoice
Reply-To: supp...@wasabi.com
Do I need to add the return-path, i.e.:
## Whitelist Wasabi, subject to passing of auth
whitelist_auth supp...@wasabi.com
whitelist_auth *@mmemail.wasabi.com
?
Thanks.
Simon.
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 23:05 AEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
On 2023-06-22 at 06:29:53 UTC-0400 (Thu, 22 Jun 2023 20:29:53 +1000)
Simon Wilson via users
is rumored to have said:
> I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.
>
> How do people work around this? I&#
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 20:37 AEST, Damian wrote:
I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.> Which
submitters? I looked at a bunch of my reports and they are all MIME_GOOD.
That one was from microsoft.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 121 116
_DIFF=0.79,
PYZOR_CHECK=1.392, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01]
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 121 116
is rule is triggering a lot on emails which are not Spam,
reducing score from 2.497
score SHOPIFY_IMG_NOT_RCVD_SFY1.8
Simon
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
- Message from Jared Hall -
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 00:07:52 -0400
From: Jared Hall
Subject: CHAOS: v1.2.2: Of Documentation
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Simon Wilson wrote:
could you, please, finally, describe what does this module do,
here to the list and/or to
art with the easy parts and follow with those more
compliated functionality, because I feel the description starts with
thelatter.
I'm guessing from the silence in response that this will remain a mystery.
Simon.
___
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
result by applying the check_host() function to the "MAIL FROM"
identity as the .
A HELO SPF check is most certainly not a "fall-back".
Whether the SPF checking tool used follows the RFC is another matter
entirely :-)
Simon.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
INBOUND
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote:
rather than change the channel distributed KAM.cf, what needs to go in
local.cf to tell that not to run? *CAN* it be disabled from local.cf, or can
it only be done by commenting out the entry in KAM.cf?
It would not make any se
e relevant milters have run and added
trusted headers on inbound email.
Simon.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
And btw, usually on the DNS infos of Senderscores, you can see about 3
days of lag compared to their online interface, dunno if expected on
their side, or they're facing perf issues, but that service is not a
top priority at all at least
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 PM Simon Bressier
- Message from Henrik K -
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:11:41 +0300
From: Henrik K
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: KAM_DMARC_REJECT on internal emails
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote
And btw, usually on the DNS infos of Senderscores, you can see about 3
days of lag compared to their online interface, dunno if expected on
their side, or they're facing perf issues, but that service is not a
top priority at all at least
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 PM Simon Bressier
Hi Simon,
For info for few days now, the Senderscore DNS server is failing to
answer. I've pinged one relation I have at Validity so they can dig on
it.
Senderscore via DNS is a legacy service they just maintain but dunno
for how long... They are more on a mood to stop that service in the
f
pamassassin ?, it have to know all wan ips for your own server /
servers
Yes, my trusted_networks, internal_networks and msa_networks are all
set correctly... I had a long discussion with this mailing list on the
subject last year and got excellent help on resolving that! :)
- End me
- Message from RW -
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:47:02 +0100
From: RW
Subject: Re: KAM_DMARC_REJECT on internal emails
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:36:58 +1000
Simon Wilson wrote:
Hi list,
- I'm running KAM rules in Spamassassin
- Po
I'd say that a proper solution would be to DKIM-sign mail before it's
spam-scanned.
On 19.04.21 19:39, Simon Wilson wrote:
Good point. If DKIM is signed it should pass DMARC, even if SPF fails.
Amavisd handles both pieces, including DKIM signing... from looking
at the headers it
On 19.04.21 16:36, Simon Wilson wrote:
- I'm running KAM rules in Spamassassin
- Postfix port 587-submitted email is sent to Amavisd (as a
content_filter) on port 10026 (tagged as ORIGINATING/MYNETS) and is
spam-checked and DKIM-signed on its way out the door, sent back to
Postfix at
_50 results.
sa-learn advises tokens learned, but it still seems to struggle with
these. Other than that my Bayes is excellent, very effective and
accurate.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Simon.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
like every inbound email.
From what I can see it's a genuine blocklist lookup by SA...
(RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf) but the error rate is strange.
Am I the only one with high volume of lookup errors from that bl? :-)
or do I need to be looking for an issue locally...
Simon.
--
- Message from Bill Cole
-
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:16:32 -0400
From: Bill Cole
Subject: Re: Update SA on CentOS
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On 4 Apr 2021, at 0:19, Simon Wilson wrote:
CentOS / RHEL backport critical security fixes into the stock
versions
- Message from Amir Caspi -
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 22:06:03 -0600
From: Amir Caspi
Subject: Re: Update SA on CentOS
To: si...@simonandkate.net
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Apr 3, 2021, at 9:15 PM, Simon Wilson wrote:
And then you are not stepping away
ation (and teaching it when it
fails to get it right) resulted in excellent spam prevention on CentOS
7 with its standard packaged SA. And then you are not stepping away
from one of CentOS's main advantages - stable packages not built
outside of RPM.
Simon
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
ernal by a properly configured SpamAssassin, please open a bug
report.
Yep, been through all of that with making sure SA knows what is
internal and external, and what it can trust and not. No issues there.
Simon
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
Does SA always do its "own" DKIM check, or can it be told to use an
already written trusted AuthservId-written Authentication-Results
header, e.g. from OpenDKIM?
Thanks
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
d rules, but what is best practice for
using DMARC results in Spamassassin?
Simon
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
ng a Received-SPF filter using
python-policyd-spf (called as last check in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions), so yes it would make sense for
spamassassin to trust the check already made - I'll see if I can work
out how to do that.
Simon.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
quick and consistent average < 0.4s
Simon
SA Timing Percentiles % TimeTotal (ms)0%
5% 25% 50% 75%
as Intended (TM). I've not set txrep_autolearn on yet, will
monitor for a while.
Simon
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 3:04 AM Simon Wilson wrote:
- Message from John Hardin -
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Hardin
Subject: Re: AWL on
- Message from John Hardin -
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Hardin
Subject: Re: AWL on 3.4
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, Simon Wilson wrote:
I've just migrated and updated to SA 3.4, and have moved the Bayes
it goes, but am
interested in comments on its usefulness?
Simon
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
"
You've not stated your OS but on a RHEL/CentOS 7 box the correct way
to remove is to go to /etc/mail/spamassassin/channel.d and delete
sought.conf.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
sassin/local.cf <http://local.cf>*, just add
> something like this:
>
> score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL 0 4 0 4
> score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 0 4 0 4
>
> This would add 4 points to the scoring when these rules matched.
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:28 PM Simon Harwood
> w
,
Simon
..
I now have the following in local.cf and it seems to be working OK,
but I'll keep an eye on it.
trusted_networks 192.168.1. 119.18.34.29
internal_networks 192.168.1. 119.18.34.29
msa_networks 192.168.1.230
score ALL_TRUSTED -1.4
Thanks again.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
Quoting Bill Cole :
On 16 Oct 2019, at 7:55, Simon Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tom Hendrikx :
[...]
RDNS_DYNAMIC tries to exclude authenticated email. Are you
accepting email from senders without authentication? Or maybe your
trusted_networks/internal_networks are misconfigured, so the
Quoting Simon Wilson :
Quoting Tom Hendrikx :
On 16-10-19 12:19, Simon Wilson wrote:
Hi, I have a Horde system submitting to a
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin server for spam detection
(different servers, same subnet). I *do* consciously run SA over
internally submitted emails to catch
Quoting Tom Hendrikx :
On 16-10-19 12:19, Simon Wilson wrote:
Hi, I have a Horde system submitting to a
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin server for spam detection
(different servers, same subnet). I *do* consciously run SA over
internally submitted emails to catch compromised accounts (it
boost? Or
anything more scientific??
Simon.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 12 11 16
] - but is taking a
LOT longer to complete them.
Complete timing results are below.
Is this just how long it takes now, or is there any tweaking I can be doing?
Simon
**
Full DNS timings
Old server
May 1 14:40:37.266 [14560] dbg: async: timing: 0.010 .
dns:A:us-west-2.amazonses.com
M
ical email takes about 4000ms.
On each server it is tests_pri_0 that takes the majority of the
time, which I understand from reading is to be expected. Is the
extended duration to be expected with newer SA, or do I need to be
digging deeper to try and find out why it's so much slower?
erver, the identical email takes about 4000ms.
On each server it is tests_pri_0 that takes the majority of the time,
which I understand from reading is to be expected. Is the extended
duration to be expected with newer SA, or do I need to be digging
deeper to try and find out why it's so much
Plenty this week. I've just been sending to spamcop, but not a lot else.
Matt wrote:
>I am seeing tons of junk getting through claiming to be from the USPS
>about a missed delivery package. Anyone else seeing this?
>
>I am running SpamAssassin 3.3.1 and execute sa-update weekly.
Great. Thanks Anthony.
--
as silly as fun
simon@klunky / .co.uk / .net
pgp 4BA78604
Antony Stone wrote:
>On Tuesday 13 August 2013 at 17:17, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did this make it into 3.3.2? ( e.g mended )
>>
>> https://issues.apache.o
Hi,
Did this make it into 3.3.2? ( e.g mended )
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
Cheers, S
On 2013-07-24 15:59, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
>> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [1] [3]
>
> It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES
On 2013-07-24 14:41, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200
> JK4 wrote:
>
>> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text and the
> obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email.
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube
http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1]
Thanks, Simon.
_*_
_# sa-learn --forget --username=spammyd aaa_
_Forgot tokens from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined)_
Links:
--
[1] http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms
d into the_ main.cf_
header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks
Completely untested and not really thought about, of course. I suspect
my regexes are broken, but this gives you an idea.
--
"I decided that I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself
amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic."
simon@klunky .co.uk / .org
!
Simon
On 2013-05-29 12:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 29.05.13 12:29, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> The socket seems ok to me: srw-rw-rw- 1 clamav clamav 0 May 14 21:43
>> /var/run/clamav/clamd.ctl
>
> what are permissions for /var/run/clamav ?
drwxr-xr-x
Sin
On 2013-05-29 11:40, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Simon,
>
>> I looked at scoring for an email on an SA installation and noticed
>> differences between hand scanning with spamc and scanning with spamd. My
>> manually scanned email hit CLAMAV sane security, (ignore Bayes
On 2013-05-29 9:21, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 28.05.13 17:30, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> I looked at scoring for an email on an SA installation and noticed
>> differences between hand scanning with spamc and scanning with spamd. My
>> manually scann
Hallo there,
I looked at scoring for an email on an SA installation and noticed
differences between hand scanning with spamc and scanning with spamd. My
manually scanned email hit CLAMAV sane security, (ignore Bayes because
the user had Bayes process this and then asked me about this), whilst
Thank-you everyone.
I shall have Bayes forget emails, then retrain with a rule that counts linkedin
invitations as spam. I have one I wrote earlier and implemented after Bayes had
gone off track.
Cheers, S.
--
as silly as fun
simon@klunky / .co.uk / .org / .net
pgp 4BA78604
Benny
On 2013-05-16 16:17, RW wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:17:14 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi all, I turned shortcircuit for BAYES_00 on a server, and noticed
that LinkedIn invitation emails hit BAYES_00.
When you say email, I presume you mean spam.
Yep
A bit strange I thought being
Hi all,
I turned shortcircuit for BAYES_00 on a server, and noticed that
LinkedIn
invitation emails hit BAYES_00. A bit strange I thought being
unlikely someone had run sa-learn on LinkedIn emails.
I grepped on all the Ham and Spam directories and hit lots of
"linkedin,com" in URLs in the bod
cided that I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself
amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and
tonic."
simon@klunky .co.uk / .org
On 2013-05-02 12:45, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
> The last two days I've started to get a small amount of spam
with these
> characteri
fight apathy or don't
simon@klunky / .co.uk / .org
pgp 4BA78604
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin" wrote:
>I was in the process of "linting" my SA config when I discovered that
>the
>pyzor servers are handing back this response to all commands:
>
>/usr/local/bin/
Guess what? After removal of,
local_phishing_reply.cf
99_anonwhois.cf
malware.blocklist.cf
the memory usage dropped to
15% of RAM.
Time to add more children into the mix.
Cheers, S
On
2013-03-06 15:55, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/6/2013 9:53 AM, Simon
Loewenthal wr
le sets. I shall drop some rule sets. An sa-compile is run every
time the automatically downloaded rulesets change, but this won't
necessarily cut here when so tight on ram.
On 2013-03-06 15:36, Kevin
A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/6/2013 9:17 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> Op
e has dropped to 198 Mb, which is a
relief, but this happened after I did a update on the server from
squeeze/updates, squeeze, and security. Before time I just had security
configured.
Cheers, S
On 2013-03-06 14:57, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 7:36 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
performance related dependencies on other
packages? Currently, Perl is 5.10.1-17squeeze4.
Regards, S
--
"I
decided that I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself amused
all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic."
simon@klunky
.co.uk / .org
Mark Martinec wrote:
>Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>> > Just notcied sa-learn kick up a fuss with some files fed into
>> > it from a user's HAM directory in a dovecot directory.
>> >
>> > I put a copy of
>> > the ham on http://pastebin.com/MLEh
^s*([a-z_-]+)s*:s*(S.*?)s*$/i) {
#
"display: none", "visibility: hidden", etc.
$new{'style_'.$1} = $2;
}
}
}
sa-learn still exits with a zero.
Does any one know what may
have tripped this up? Is it a bug, or some strange formatting in the
email message?
Hi Mark,
maybe this works. This I stole it from someone who posted
here.
# HTML - White text on a white background. What is the
point?
rawbody HTML_TEXT_WHITE_SHORT /style=.color#FFF;/
describe
HTML_TEXT_WHITE_SHORT White html txt on white bg
score
HTML_TEXT_WHITE_SHORT 0.1
Simon
---
&q
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>
>But more importantly, it's because we do not have have the rule
>hit statistics from your email ..
Which has been on my personal backlog for over a year. (It is self-serving &
should have a higher priority thus) .
Except for formal letters to administrative addresses.
Dear Bob was a frivolous and incorrect example. It is really Sir/Madam
As Alex noted, I coils score it lower,bit am concerned on the overall effect.
I'lltest first.
Cheers.
RW wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:47:20 +0200
>Simon
Evening all,
A great majority of our ham starts with Dear Sir/ Dear Madam / Dear Bob.
Therefore I've always wondered why this this is scored so highly:
* 2.0 DEAR_SOMETHING BODY: Contains 'Dear (something)'
Does anyone know the rational behind this, or is our user base simply
communicating
>... for their own protection.
What do we need protection from?
s
--
Dogs are tough.
I've been interrogating this one for hours and he still won't tell me who's a
good boy.
simon@klunky / .co.uk / .org
jonathonb wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Some interesting responses
Hi
I have Bayes correctly scoring BAYES_99 on Dutch and French straight out of
the box. No problems.
--
Dogs are tough.
I've been interrogating this one for hours and he still won't tell me who's a
good boy.
simon@klunky / .co.uk / .org
John Hardin wrote:
>On Mon,
Hi,
SA does not store spam. It scans it. It is up to your to decide what to do with
it.
I send mine to Dovecot for delivery to the users' mailboxes.
S
--
Dogs are tough.
I've been interrogating this one for hours and he still won't tell me who's a
good boy.
simon@kl
On 04/12/2012 12:58 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-04-11 15:37, Simon Loewenthal skrev:
>
>> Partially answered.
>> # spamassassin --lint
>> Apr 11 15:35:06.700 [24545] warn: config: failed to parse line,
>> skipping, in "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf&q
On 11/04/12 15:30, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are these options still valid for
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SpamCop settings in the local.cf
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_SpamCop.html
>
> (from spamcop.net http://spamco
Hi,
Are these options still valid for
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SpamCop settings in the local.cf
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_SpamCop.html
(from spamcop.net http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/331.html ).
*It is recommended the default settings in Sp
spamc
>> run?
>>
>> spamc -y -R < /path/to/sampler
>>
>> What did you see here then?
>>
>>
>> Banyan He
>> Blog: http://www.rootong.com
>> Email: ban...@rootong.com
>>
>>
>> On 2012-03-23 8:49 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote
; /path/to/sampler
>
> What did you see here then?
>
>
> Banyan He
> Blog: http://www.rootong.com
> Email: ban...@rootong.com
>
>
> On 2012-03-23 8:49 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>> Indeed I certainly can.
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/c2an4
Indeed I certainly can.
http://pastebin.com/c2an4irw
On 23/03/12 13:44, Banyan He wrote:
> Maybe you can share with us the debug output for the second thought in
> this case, Simon.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Banyan He
> Blog: http://www.rootong.com
> Email:
|sucabikes\.com\.ar|mpe-export\.com|eceurop\.com|cdromland\.nl|buyshield\.com)/
scoreRBODY_PDOMAINS1 5.0
SA version is 3.3.1-1 running on Debian Squeeze.
Something ought to have changed, because I swear these custom rules
works last month.
Regards, Simon
--
PGP is optional
Paul Russell wrote:
>On 3/12/2012 12:58, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>>
>> At first glance:
>> This is private black list of email assesses maintened by many. Free
>to use, but it'll turn into a huge file for a server to parse.
>>
>> Eventually we m
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've been following this thread... not sure how many of you are aware
>of
>this project:
>
>http://code.google.com/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/
>
>We use the phishing address list and it does catch a few things. We
>don't yet use the phishing URL list, but it look
On 09/03/12 11:29, FC Mario Patty wrote:
> I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
>
> We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the
> outgoing server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our
> server itself (in other words, not relaying through the provider
> s
Hi,
Were these rules, or an improved variant, added to the rules?
Regards, Simon.
On 16/02/12 01:43, neon_overload wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created some rules which I have found to be very effective so far at
> identifying a certain type of spam that spamassassin other
It was a last minute decision.
Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
>Ha. Nice
>
>
>--
>Jeremy McSpadden
>
>On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "Michael Scheidell"
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/12 11:36 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> just a note to whom it might concern :)
>>>
>> phisting?
>>
>> OUCH.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mich
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
