I am following this tutorial:
https://www.linuxbabe.com/redhat/spamassassin-centos-rhel-block-email-spam.
I followed the steps in "Move Spam into the Junk Folder". When I send an
email from a blacklisted e-mail address, I get a bounce e-mail from my
e-mail server. Here is what is in my spamass-mi
>
> I am following this tutorial:
https://janikarhunen.fi/tackle-spam-with-spamassassin-on-centos-7-and-postfix.
It says that the message should show up, labeled "Spam". But it never
shows up in my inbox. I would appreciate any help. Thanks!
Here is output from my maillog:
Dec 07 00:12:31 mail.
say that I wanted to see if the
same email address is in a X-Envelope-From header and Reply-To header? That's
not exactly what I was looking to do but is similar.
Thanks for any suggestions
Bobby Rose
This document may include proprietary and confidential
Yep. Timeouts have stopped on the node that I switched back to iXhash 1.0.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rose, Bobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:22 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Bug in iXhash plugin - fixed version available
The old
The old version will still work. 1.5.2 is working for me except that since
starting to use it, I'm seeing more SA timeouts than before. So on one box,
I've gone back to 1.01 to confirm that it is iXhash 1.5.2
-Original Message-
From: RobertH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, D
I just tried again with this 1.5.2 version and on box it times out querying and
on another it seems to run but no hits again. Both my boxes are SA3.2.5.
Does anyone have a message that is known to have hashes on any of iXhash hosts?
-Original Message-
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[
Has anyone who switched to 1.5 of iXHash received any hits? I haven't seen any
since switching. One thing that I've noticed is if I pass the same message
thru SA using the old iXhash, the hash is computed via Method 1 and 2, if I use
1.5 of iXhash, it's only computed using method 2
On one box
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with the RFCs.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
out there. Some have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and others have [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bobby
It does makes sense that they would list unused/unowned netblocks in
APNIC in their database probably because of the probability that such
blocks would get assigned to an ISP which more than likely offer it up
as dynamic. I haven't looked there in a while but I thought it
explained conditions for
I just checked my logs because I was surprised to here this and it looks
like 82.94.255.100:24441 is what I'm still using and my
MailScanner-SpamAssassin log entries are still showing that sa rule
being tripped by some transactions. 263 so far today and 1740 yesterday
average sa-checked messages i
Is it possible to have a rule that looks at the SA checks already
performed and score based off that. For example, I'm thinking about a
rule that offsets a negative Bayes/CRM114 value if DCC and RAZOR or some
other rules checks have tripped.
-=B
I thought that was the purpose of the pyzor discover command? Who
maintains 82.94.255.100 as it doesn't get listed with pyzor discover.
-Original Message-
From: User for SpamAssassin Mail List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 6:56 PM
To: Gary V
Cc: users@spamassassin
I'm seeing the same kind of messages mentioned after compiling from
source on Redhat ES4 and running make test.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel J McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:35 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Apache SpamAs
added it to my local.cf but it's odd it was removed when I'm
seeing it as a common factor in alot of recent spam coming to my domain
after upgrading.
-=Bobby
The ImageInfo packaged with 3.2.0 isn't the latest version from SARE as
it's missing the image_name_regex method.
-=B
So what you're saying is that the rule that people running
listservers should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from
the list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam
product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for spamcop lists
is d
But windows patches are free. Even if you are using an illegal copy of
windows, you can still manually download and install the patches. It's
Microsoft Update where they mostly have the genuine windows verification
code. Even Redhat forces you to pay subscriptions for their autoupdate
manageme
unknown
format. Skipping this image...
Thanks
Bobby
ck on the file.
I then removed bayes.lock* files in the same directory. Ran sa-learn -D
--sync, reported that it was upgrading the database to v3 and completed.
When run again it can't get a lock on the file.
I'd rather not rebuild this database if possible. Any ideas?
Bobby
R/W /var/amavisd/.spamassassin/bayes_seen
[25988] dbg: bayes: found bayes db version 2
[25988] dbg: bayes: detected bayes db format 2, upgrading
[25988] dbg: bayes: upgrading database format from v2 to v3
[25988] dbg: locker: refresh_lock:
refresh /var/amavisd/.spamassassin/bayes.lock
[25988] dbg: bayes: expiry completed
When I run sa-learn -D --sync again I get the same output as the first
time.
Bobby
Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried
from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and
then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error. It's
not DNS because the FQDN resolves.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ss
Subject: Re: ZDNET redirecting to spammer websites?
On Monday, March 21, 2005, 11:32:45 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
> Wouldn't this just be something that SURBL should take care of? If
> this URL is the source of spam then it should be in SURBL regardless
> if it's in the zdne
Wouldn't this just be something that SURBL should take care of? If this
URL is the source of spam then it should be in SURBL regardless if it's
in the zdnet.com domain. Right!?
-Original Message-
From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:35 AM
T
But doesn't the licensing change have more to do with people setting up
there own private database of hashes and not so much a case of querying
the public databases which most SA people are doing?
-Original Message-
From: Greg Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 200
SURBL have significantly higher scores - URIBL_SC_SURBL is many times
what URIBL_SBL is.
> (You may not know, but I even proposed adding back the SPEWS lists,
> though with low scores, and I do use all the rfci lists with
> relatively low scores except for bogusmx, which may be the best sin
But in my test messages the email address wasn't in the form of a URI.
It was just the email address. I even used pine for a test to make sure
it was a gui client doing some reformatting business.
Do we know if it's possible to know if the results from SBL are for the
domain of the URI being quer
lved)
(B
(BOn Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 3:55:52 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
(B
(B> I figured out the problem, it' was the an individuals email address in
(B> the message body (even though not a mailto). Their email domain isn't
(B> listed at spamhaus.org but it turns out one
y provide services to spammers.
Any idea on how to limit the scope to just the URI at it's face value?
-Original Message-
From: Rose, Bobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:14 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: URI Tests and Japanese Chars
I have a
ad of whitelisting. I don't see anything in the
message bodies that even looks like a URI. Has anyone else ran into
this?
Bobby Rose
Wayne State University School of Medicine
30 matches
Mail list logo
