On 19/07/2022 09:49, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
At the very least they let you know that a message was rejected.
I can then go look at my MTAs logs and deduce why message(s) were
rejected with more authority than anything the MLM could tell me.
Is that what you tell your customers? I'm d
On 7/18/22 5:30 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Which is a joke, because it does not, and qmails ezmlm has never
included enough of the headers telling us _why_ we rejected it.
Your opinion of the notification doesn't change the intention behind the
notification.
Most of the notifications that I see
On 19/07/2022 09:12, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
Every version of what you describe that I've looked at has been the
courtesy message.
Which is a joke, because it does not, and qmails ezmlm has never
included enough of the headers telling us _why_ we rejected it.
But seriously folks, why
On 7/18/22 4:23 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
Don't know why this didn't go through.
chuckle
The copy with your comment /did/. But I suppose the message that
prompted you to make the comment didn't.
That is what it is SUPPOSED to be. What it actually is is something else.
Every version of what you
Don't know why this didn't go through.
On 2022 Jul 13, at 12:24, Grant Taylor via users
wrote:
> On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce did not
>> come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP addresses, no
>> Receive
On 14/07/2022 17:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Noel Butler skrev den 2022-07-14 00:38:
ezmlm has been long brain dead, I particularly like its messages
saying its reject message but never tells you the actual 5xx code.
I aint about to go through 2019's logs to find out why either :)
Content-Tra
Noel Butler skrev den 2022-07-14 00:38:
ezmlm has been long brain dead, I particularly like its messages
saying its reject message but never tells you the actual 5xx code.
I aint about to go through 2019's logs to find out why either :)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type
On 14/07/2022 04:24, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce did
not come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP
addresses, no Received headers, nothing that could possibly be used to
fig
On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce
did not come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP
addresses, no Received headers, nothing that could possibly be used
to figure out what is going on here.
I think this is a cou
On 2022 Jul 12, at 13:08, users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote:
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
>
>
> Messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
> have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
> message I
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 19:09 +0100, wolfgang wrote:
> In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Evan Platt wrote:
> > On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
> > > I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
> > > users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
> >
> > Won't work, AFA
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 18:40 -0800, Robert Hanson wrote:
> > Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
>
> karsten,
> woooh!
> you are welcome! :-)
>
> since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
>From a bunch of mail admins?
To contact LIST-owner@ [1] and summ
> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:53 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Appears the bounce, any email addresses and the attached "original" are
> > *severely* munged. Spotted a hint, need this to generate a direct
> > bounce.
> >
> > Will unsubscribe the offender, if I can track it down.
On 23.01.10
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?, or did it, but apache.org did not
see the problem in maillist ?
Because we have a caching server accepting the mail, and then when it
*finally* decides the client is not going to retrieve the mail, it
genera
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
You are right, concerning mails to users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.org
>
> why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?
As stated before: because the MTA of the recipient sends bounces to the
address in the "From:&q
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
You are right, concerning mails to users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.org
>
> why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?
As stated before: because the MTA of the recipient sends bounces to the
address in the "From:&q
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Evan Platt wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
> > I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
> > users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
>
> Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm
> it. Othe
On Sun 24 Jan 2010 05:55:21 PM CET, Evan Platt wrote
Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm it.
Otherwise, you would be able to unsubscribe anyone :)
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?, or did it, but apache.org
did not see the problem in maillist ?
not
On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
> I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
> users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm it.
Otherwise, you would be able to unsubscribe anyone :)
From: "R-Elists"
Sent: Saturday, 2010/January/23 18:40
Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
karsten,
woooh!
you are welcome! :-)
since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
this isnt the first post to the list about it...
there was another threa
>
> Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
>
karsten,
woooh!
you are welcome! :-)
since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
this isnt the first post to the list about it...
there was another thread or two about it in the recent past... i.e. 1 to 3
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:53 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Appears the bounce, any email addresses and the attached "original" are
> *severely* munged. Spotted a hint, need this to generate a direct
> bounce.
>
> Will unsubscribe the offender, if I can track it down.
Done. How nice of them t
In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
> just hoped that maillist-owner is a subscriber aswell and post more
> here to see the problem
I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
I hope that's more effective
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:21 +0100, wolfgang wrote:
> In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), RobertH wrote:
> > why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status
> > Notification (Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still
> > subscri
On Sat 23 Jan 2010 07:35:43 PM CET, RobertH wrote
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status Notification
(Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still subscribed to the
list?
it does not bounce to apache org, only to subscribers :)
just hoped that maillist-owner
In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), RobertH wrote:
> why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status
> Notification (Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still
> subscribed to the list?
Probably because the bounces go to the message authors and n
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status Notification
(Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still subscribed to the
list?
- rh
Original-Envelope-ID: c=US;a=
;p=HUNDREDACREWOOD;l=CHRISROBIN-100111200457Z-1594
Reporting-MTA: dns; chrisrobin.hundredacrewood.local
Final-Recipient: RFC822;
imceaex-_o=hundredacrewood_ou=first+20administrative+20group_cn=recipients_cn=spamassassin849bbb2d4bc147862176109e81ca5068034...@wil
DSN's I'm figuring the answer is here, if anywhere
1) your MTA bounces, becouse your users mailboxes are full.
Of the two questions, this one is closest, but it's not the MTA that
generates the bounce. The MTA has handed off the message for delivery to
individual recipients
/ ) so i'll try both:
1) your MTA bounces, becouse your users mailboxes are full.
Defer (temporary reject) the message at smtp time, so the sending MTA
retrys a few times and ultimatly gives up informing the REAL sender.
(you could also reject permanently, if you want that)
If you ab
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:34, John Hardin wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't help anybody else that posts to the list.
it will if admins at remote read there logs, but yes we can only wait now
If they do, they don't act very quickly. I've been rejecting th
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
I started blocking some backscattering hosts and would like to inform
them how to fix the issue.
I still welcome suggestions for handling the few remaining cases where my
procmail chokes on a mailbox limit. Probably more of a PM question than an
SA q
> > FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
>
> so now thay using postfix ?, fixing valid recipient maps is dangerous :)
What are you talking about, Benny? The ASF admins have removed the
offending address from the list's subscribers.
Anyway, this horse is now dead. Please stop b
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:48, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 19:32 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
> FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
so now thay using postfix ?, fixing valid recipient maps is d
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 19:32 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:34, John Hardin wrote:
> Sure, but that doesn't help anybody else that posts to the list.
it will if admins at remote read there logs, but yes we can only wait now
--
xpoint
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:09, John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
here i have seen 25 of this bouncers, i have added his sender ip into
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 10:09 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
> cas...@snigelpost.org?
Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:09, John Hardin wrote:
> Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
> cas...@snigelpost.org?
>
> If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
here i have seen 25 of this bouncers, i have added his sender ip into postfwd
client_address until
John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
Yep. I wish backscatter.org had a reporting and educating form. Ie
automaticaly inform the postmaster of that system of the listing
incuding educational material how to fix it.
Btw
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79
Diverting from the original question...
> Spamassassin is now down to *ONLY* 45% of cpu or thereabouts...
Use spamc/spamd!
According to your OP, you are calling spamassassin, forking a new
heavy-weight process for each mail. This comes with a considerable
start-up penalty. You can get rid of th
amassassin is now down to *ONLY* 45% of cpu or thereabouts...
they get a LOT of spam :-)
Cheers
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18963976.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 06:24 -0700, theWoosh wrote:
> /etc/postfix/main had mailbox_size_limit set to 11 megs
>
That isn't a default value: the Postfix default is 5120, 50 MB. The
mailbox_size_limit parameter is not defined in the default main.cf for
the current version of Postfix (2.4.5) so if
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, theWoosh wrote:
/etc/postfix/main had mailbox_size_limit set to 11 megs - can't believe this
is the default! All 3 users are on holiday, so this is the first time this
limit had been reached...
upped it to half a gig and now the mail is getting through
11 messages? T
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18962995.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18962993.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ld be gratefully recieve
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18961801.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Alex Woick writes:
> Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
> that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
> Here is such a backscatter mail:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
: jm 5...; ./spamassassin -D -Lt < /home/j
On Fri, June 6, 2008 14:33, Alex Woick wrote:
>>> whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
should be ok if its public dns
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
postfix add $myhostname here
> For the time being, I solved the problem by removing
> "lxrouter.wombaz.localnet" fro
Yes I did, and all the other backscatter is detected by vbounce fine:
whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
But now I saw the Message-Id contained my local mail server name from
whitelist_bounce_relays:
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The "lxrouter.wombaz.localnet" can o
At 15:25 05-06-2008, David B Funk wrote:
However RFC-2821, section 6.3 (Compensating for Irregularities) says
that the originating SMTP server may add a message-id field when none
appears. So if qmail is the first SMTP server to fondle the message
it could/(should?) add a message-id.
It's up to
On Friday 06 June 2008 00:11:37 mouss wrote:
> postfix adds missing (mandatory) headers because it works as a
> submission MTA, because this is how sendmail has always worked. This
> behaviour is no more desirable for an MX (it is good for an MSA).
Right now i get your point. I thought you where
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
> > the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
>
> RFC 2822 says: "every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field."
> i can't find the addition "except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server"
>
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
so what?
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: "every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field."
i can't find the addition "except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server"
here.
This has
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
> stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
> postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
> qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
postfix add mta hostname to message-id if
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
> the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: "every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field."
i can't find the addition "except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server"
here.
Well it says "SHOULD". So actually your system
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like "wasn't able to deliver your message
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like "wasn't able to deliver your message" could b
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like "wasn't able to deliver your message
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like "wasn't able to deliver your message" could b
> but I don't send "messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
> have been bouncing".
> What do I have to do to resolve the problem?
>
> Andrea
Andrea
If you are using SA on your mail server, make sure that you whitelist all
the lists that you are subscribed to... sometimes they will b
but I don't send "messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
have been bouncing".
What do I have to do to resolve the problem?
You misunderstand. You are signed up to receive messages from this mailing
list. The mailing list demon has attempted to send messages FROM the list
TO you.
message I received.
If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the users mailing list,
without further notice.
I've kept a list of which messages from the users mailing list have
bounced from you
On 8/22/07, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/22/07, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
> > what happens that creates a problem.
> > You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
>
On 8/22/07, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
> what happens that creates a problem.
> You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
> "spam" coming from you? Is that what happens?
> Visit them a
It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
what happens that creates a problem.
You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
"spam" coming from you? Is that what happens?
Visit them and take a big club with you. It's obviously *completely*
un
On 8/22/07, Kevin Parris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it might be easier if you would simply have a conversation with
> the techy folks at your customers- invite them to configure THEIR system
> so that either everything from YOUR system is OK no matter what spam
> status it has (they can r
I think it might be easier if you would simply have a conversation with
the techy folks at your customers- invite them to configure THEIR system
so that either everything from YOUR system is OK no matter what spam
status it has (they can route it to bit-bucket or whatever) or turn off
the reject-no
ly what you're describing.
Yeah I saw the VBounce rules before posting, but those rules are to stop the
bounces reaching any of my servers , what I want to do is to use the default
filter set with the bounces my own server is generating cause of the spam
filters of my customers.
The mails ge
> do what you are trying to do here, then legitimate bounce messages
> > will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
> > their service. (and if you don't, you'll be creating backscatter)
>
>
> If I achieved what I'm trying there sho
f you
> do what you are trying to do here, then legitimate bounce messages
> will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
> their service. (and if you don't, you'll be creating backscatter)
If I achieved what I'm trying there should been that much of
Really the only way to solve this properly is to stop providing relay
service. Relay service is a non-op in the current spam war. If you
do what you are trying to do here, then legitimate bounce messages
will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
their service. (an
> Hello,
>
> It must been asked before, but I couldn't find any
> suitable, will be glad if you point me somewhere...
> In our company we have the (mailer-exchange ->
> spam-scanner -> customers with their own mail servers)
> topology.
> We relay mail to them but some of them don't have the
> s
Hello,
It must been asked before, but I couldn't find any suitable, will be glad if
you point me somewhere...
In our company we have the (mailer-exchange -> spam-scanner -> customers
with their own mail servers) topology.
We relay mail to them but some of them don't have the spam service with us
a
I'm full of questions tonight. Looks like the joe-job against me is running
full force again, thanks to the VBounce rule set they're not going into my
spam folder as to be run against my reporting script. However, would it
cause any harm if these were run against my other script which reports to
Is there anyone who has a working scenario in where double bounces are
stripped from the two bounce messages (thus containing only the original
spam mesage) and fed to sa-learn?
These got tagged as spam the first time they arrived on the server, but
since they double bounced, I wanna put them in
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The o
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:28, John Andersen wrote:
Replying to myself...
It looks upon further inspection that this guy is the problem. He
seems to be routing mail back to the list or something:
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:49:49 -0400
--
_
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
> Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
>
> It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
> list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
> had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct o
On 7/21/06 at 3:04 PM Evan Platt wrote:
>At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
>>Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
>>
>>It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
>>list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
>>had the system's spamassa
th a fake bounce message to you, but that
would be too mean. :-D
I am pretty good at detecting fakes, I believe. Besides bounces from
individual people get a procmail rule to bypass all further testing
on all future emails from that domain on their way to /dev/null. I am
not forgiving of mail bounc
At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
sa-sta
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
sa-stats.pl which included several BAYES
bug, it certainly looks like it.
> But it seems to be a long term one - seen in emails from SMTPSVC versions
> 5.0.2195.6713 and 6.0.3790.1830. Remote MS servers, configured for
> foreign languages, sending genuine non-spam bounces to non-spam mails
> cause SA to FP on this rule.
&
have an M$ mail server (and I for one don't want one). We're a
Unix shop, as qmail and qpsmtpd in our own headers shows :)
I'm quite prepared to believe this is a MS bug, it certainly looks like it.
But it seems to be a long term one - seen in emails from SMTPSVC versions
5.0.2195
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Leverton wrote:
[snip]
> Subject: =3D?unicode-1-1-utf-7?Q?+kU1P4XK2YUuQGnfl- =20
> (+MKgw6TD8-)?=3D
>
Aside from the QP scatter, this subject doesn't look like it's properly
encoded. if memory serves, if the encoded subject needs to be
Microsoft SMTPSVC seems to trigger BAD_ENC_HEADER when sending bounces if
it's been given a non-English bounce template (or whatever M$ use for
configuring that). Even bounces to correctly encoded mail. I've got quite
a number of examples, and all of them have a foreign language Sub
Could somebody please remote that guy from the list?
mfg zmi
-- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem: --
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Date: Freitag, 12. Mai 2006 00:40
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The or
Hi!
Spamassassin: 3.0.2
System: Debian sarge
I want to filter spam bounces.
The problem is the __BEC_SPAM_H and __BEC_SPAM_B rule will not trigger if
the bounce is a mime-mail with the original spam attached (subject only in
attachment).
How can I tell spamassassin to check the headers
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> Having gotten the spam under control, I found that I was getting
> bombed with tons of bounces as well. So I made up a quick ruleset
> to stop undeliverables due to the german spam, using Raymond's
> ruleset as a starting point. You can get it here:
Having gotten the spam under control, I found that I was getting bombed
with tons of bounces as well. So I made up a quick ruleset to stop
undeliverables due to the german spam, using Raymond's ruleset as a
starting point. You can get it here:
http://www.exit0.us/index.php?pag
Matthew Newton wrote:
What would be the benefits of creating rules that fired on bounce
messages only (i.e. came from <>), and hit stuff like this. Are there
any reasons why giving a score of 10 when matching "Spam-Score: "
on a bounce would cause a real bounce to get rejected?
Yes, if the
Look at Time Jackson's Bogus Virus Warning ruleset. It is designed to catch
backscatter of this general sort. Might not handle your exact case, but
worth a try.
Loren
unce would cause a real bounce to get rejected?
Obviously not all bounces include info about the original message, but
this might help cut down some of them, maybe?
Any comments?
Thanks
Matthew
--
Matthew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
UNIX and e-mail Systems Administrator, Network Suppo
.
>
> LS> The real problem is that I receive the "Postmaster" messages, and
> LS> feel that they should be reviewed, but with the volume so high
> LS> they all tend to be ignored/deleted.
>
> Check out http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
>
&g
LS> feel that they should be reviewed, but with the volume so high
LS> they all tend to be ignored/deleted.
Check out http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
It will at least catch the virus-related bounces, and IMO with help
from other rules should catch a fair number of spam bounces.
Bob Menschel
w I should upgrade
but have been buried in more pressing issues).
I'd like to develop a rule that would weed out these bounces (perhaps by
analyzing the "Received headers" to determine that the original message came
from elsewhere, and was wondering if anyone had already done such a
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
