Hi James
Just to let you know it isn't just you. Tried this this morning with
same result. Retried just now, where it seems to have found an update
(1786640), but still doesn't update, exiting with error code 1 (no
updates available), as below
Apr 6 15:05:52.617 [22842] dbg: channel: usin
Tried that when I read Kevin's message. It failed, until I unset a
http_proxy env variable, which I'v now tracked down and eliminated.
Everything is working fine now, thanks
On 30/03/17 13:40, RW wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:45:59 +0100
Terry Stewart wrote:
Hi
I'm havin
rds
Terry
On 30/03/17 12:34, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/30/2017 5:45 AM, Terry Stewart wrote:
Mar 29 12:36:28.814 [12498] dbg: channel: found mirror
http://sa-update.dnswl.org/ weight=1
Mar 29 12:36:28.814 [12498] dbg: channel: found mirror
http://www.sa-update.pccc.com/ weight=5
Mar 29 12
Hi
I'm having trouble using sa-update where it says "channel: could not
find working mirror, channel failed".
I'm running this on a Solaris 10 server. DNS works fine (the mail
server also acts as our DNS server) as below
nslookup http://sa-update.space-pro.be
Non-authoritative answer:
Nam
I use amavis-new and block based on file type. My users should never get legit
executables via email, so they are sent to a quarantine.
### BLOCKED ANYWHERE
# qr'^UNDECIPHERABLE$', # is or contains any undecipherable components
qr'^\.(exe-ms|dll)$', # banned file(1) types,
On 03/06/2006, at 8:13 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
For most software, I'd strongly agree with you. But anti-spam
software is like anti-virus software. The battle evolves rapidly,
and you need to evolve with it if you're going to be effective in
fighting it.
With SA 3.1.2 just released, 3.
On 07/06/2006, at 5:54 AM, David B Funk wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, wrote:
I have to wonder if a spammer is testing their Zombies since all I
have received are from
Dialup/broadband customers. Could this be the rain before the
flood of spam/virus?
I'm voting for this explanati
> On Donnerstag, 16. März 2006 08:16 David B Funk wrote:
> > No, but in the SPF record for "artesyncp.com" you should list the
> > names of the outgoing SMTP servers so SA (and the world) will know
> > that they are 'permitted' to source mail for "artesyncp.com".
Aye; thanks. Unfortunately, our
We've got an outgoing SMTP gateway of bratwurst.heurikon.com (heurikon.com
being an old domain name, and I've never bothered with trying to update the
domain for all of our infrastructure machines), but our outgoing domain on
our emails is artesyncp.com (and that may change soon as well).
I'm won
John Stewart wrote:
> > The fact is, I just don't have the time to give SA proper
> > care and feeding.
> > I know there are some commercial anti-spam packages based on
> > SA. I'd like to
> > know if anyone has opinions on their effectiveness and admi
We've been running SpamAssassin with amavisd-new for years... still on an
old version, and been meaning to update for far too long.
The fact is, I just don't have the time to give SA proper care and feeding.
I know there are some commercial anti-spam packages based on SA. I'd like to
know if an
> If you view the Public Folder using Outlook just add the
> column "Changed
> By" using Field Chooser. That should be the person that copied it
> there.
Aye; thanks. They're gone now (sucked down every hour via IMAP), but the
next time it happens I'll use this.
johnS
Mostly OT, but I know some others on here are doing the same thing as I on
their Exchange systems (using public folders as repositories for sa-learn).
I've posted to an Exchange newsgroup, but thought it was worth throwing out
here to see if anyone has an idea.
We are running Exchange 5.5.
We ha
> All it needs is port 53 TCP and UDP open (outbound),
> depending on what
> firewall product you use, depends on how. A bit of Google with what
> ports on what product will yield what you should need.
One thing to note... if your firewall is proxying for you, make sure it
doesn't think it's a
> Hmm, in my copy of SA 3.0.3 an ipwhois rule is present, but commented
> out with a note saying "disabled since ipwhois is going away." By any
> chance are you using an older version of SA?
Aye, thanks. I'm using 2.6.4, yes.
> If you don't want to upgrade right now, just disable
> RCVD_IN_RFC
I just upgraded our firewall and the DNS proxy is not liking our SA system
querying localhost.rfc-ignorant.org, as this is 127.0.0.1 and our DNS proxy
likes to be authoritative for 127.0.0.1.
So on a query of localhost.rfc-ignorant.org, SA is getting back NXDOMAIN
instead of 127.0.0.1.
I'm wonde
> However, when querying
> achat-montre-rolex.net.multi.surbl.org, the firewall
> appears to decide that the answer is within a zone it has
> authority over,
> and rejects it (returning NXDOMAIN to the internal DNS servers).
>
> I'm going to look into figuring out how to allow these queries thr
> Your configuration and installation are fine. multi.surbl.org is
> the only list that should be checked, as it's the combined list
> with all other SURBL lists included:
>
> http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#multi
Aha! I think I've found the problem. The behaviour for SpamCopURI must have
ch
?
I'm using SA 2.6.4, but with a somewhat old version of perl... other than
that, everything is pretty up to date. Tried the latest Net::DNS, but no
change.
thanks!!
johnS
-Original Message-
From: Stewart, John
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:33 AM
To: 'Jeff Chan'; SpamAssassi
; 0.988731707317073
debug: bayes token 'UD:cf' => 0.0131219512195122
debug: bayes token 'N:H*r:TLSvN' => 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token 'H*r:cipher' => 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes token '2.6.4' => 0.985096774193548
debug: bayes tok
> On Friday, May 6, 2005, 3:23:56 PM, John Stewart wrote:
> > I upgraded just the other day (at which point I suspect I
> broke something)
> > as I saw on a site somewhere that 2.6.3 was vulnerable to a
> DOS attack. I
> > upgraded to 2.6.4 for SA, and 0.25 for SpamCop
> > > > www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
> Yes, all the discussions on this list that contain the above text
> are being flagged by my SA as hitting the OB SURBL list.
>
> That particular host/URL is only registered in the OB list, do you
> have a check against:
>check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.sur
> > I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
> >
> > www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
>
> Upgrade to SA-2.6.4+SpamCopURI, catches those just fine. ;)
>
I'm running 2.6.4 with SpamCopURI - is this being flagged on your install as
being in the URI-BL? This email wasn't tagged
> >Although not the ideal solution, it will suffice, I suppose.
> I wouldn't
> >think at this point (assuming they make this change) that it warrants
> >submission to any RBLs.
>
> I do. I think that if they don't offer an opt out then it
> becomes unsolicited.
The opt-out was to email back t
> If the OP has already asked (politely) to be removed, then they are
> indeed spamming. The first mail, I would say is warranted, the mails
> after the opt-out are not.
Exactly; I did ask. However, it appears that they rarely check the account
they have for sender address.
> If they are in th
> LOL yeah, just post her domain name here, and I'll add it to
> uribl.com ;)
> (Thats a URI-BL, not an RBL. The greatest antispam technique
> since blah blah blah.)
>
> Spamcop is always a good place.
Well, I just got another call from the co-owner in charge of the software
side. She is
> >- Simply ban their domain from my mailserver and report them
> >to the RBLs?
>
> Yup. And tell her you will. Tell her she is about to get all
> her emails
> blocked from 3/4 of the earth.
As I've never actually submitted a domain to any RBLs before, any
suggestions on good ones to use?
th
Well, I just got a call from the person at the store who is responsible for
setting up the technical side of things.
It was not a good conversation.
I was very calm (until the end) and tried to explain why it was a bad idea,
what they needed to do to make it work ethically, etc, how they could
So, I was taking a shower this morning and was thinking I might send out a
confessional email to this list... and then something else happened that has
changed my outlook.
The story is this... in my town, I've not been able for the longest time to
find a reliable person to cut my hair. The choice
> Use the test point, this should hit one of the SURBL lists,
> but I forget
> if it shows up as WS or SC:
>
> http://surbl-org-permanent-test-point.com/
For this it only hits SPAMCOP_URI_RBL. Is this normal? (it sounds like it's
supposed to trigger more, I thought)
thanks!
johnS
We're running SpamAssassin 2.63 with amavisd-new-20030616-p5 and postfix as
a frontend to our Exchange server (yes, it all needs to be updated, but
still working damn well). SA/amavisd-new tags all mail with scores (dropping
stuff with scores over 20), and it's up to Exchange rules to filter to Sp
Here's the result from running it with ktrace (BSD equiv of systrace).
I've included what looks to be the headers from the last message it was
attempting to read.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 2 08:51:34 2004
Status: D
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from
# uname -a
OpenBSD bia.amotken.com 3.5 GENERIC#34 i386
# grep "^From " /tmp/junk |wc -l
1022
# sa-learn --showdots --mbox --spam /tmp/junk
...Memory fault
# ulimit -a
time(cpu-seconds)unlimited
file(blocks) unlimited
coredump(blocks) 0
data(kbytes) 1048576
stack(
Hi all,
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22). SA is running on an OpenBSD
3.5 i386 machine. I'm starting it up using the following
/usr/local/bin/spamd -u spamd -a --allowed-ips=192.168.1.0/24
--siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin/ -d --listen-ip=192.168.1.4 -D
my local.cf file is bel
de your respective firewalls, there should be no
security problem.
If a terrestrial connection is not feasible, you should be
able to get a static IP with two-way satellite.
--Stewart
f the problem. They are generally appreciative, and
that is good for business.
The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd.
The pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
Just ask Michael Jackson :)
--Stewart
can throw in a few extra points for an onMouseOver clause
that sets the status bar to https ... :)
--Stewart
re. They will have really high scores. Most MTAs add 'Received:'
headers :)
--Stewart
rn gives.
Once you've done the above three steps, then we can explore whether the
method I use for implementing my own custom rules will work for you.
Thanks again,
Stewart
email
accounts. Surely, hundreds of users have done this before, but
sorry, I was unable to find a solution with Google, or searching
the archives for this list.
Thanks,
Stewart
40 matches
Mail list logo
