Now that perl 5.14.0 is gaining traction (appeared in FreeBSD ports and
elsewhere), I'd like to point out that a module Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA 0.26
is still not fixed and an old bug now results in Mail::DKIM failing,
consequently DKIM checks in SpamAssassin and in amavisd fail.
The fix is r
>> Looking at the X-Spam-Report on various messages and I never see that
>> its looked at. I see that SPF is checked and scored. Any idea why
>> its not checking the DKIM signatures?
>
> Check the file v312.pre and see if the "loadplugin" line for DKIM is
> commented out. If it is, uncomment it
> From: Matt [mailto:lm7...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:32 AM
> To: users
> Subject: DKIM Checks
>
> I am running spamassassin-3.2.5-1.el5 on 64 bit CentOS.
>
> sa-update -D seems to indicate that the DKIM libraries are installed.
> ...
> May 18
I am running spamassassin-3.2.5-1.el5 on 64 bit CentOS.
sa-update -D seems to indicate that the DKIM libraries are installed.
May 18 10:25:02.682 [15134] dbg: diag: [...] module installed:
Digest::SHA1, version 2.11
May 18 10:25:02.682 [15134] dbg: diag: [...] module installed:
HTML::Parser, vers
Micah Anderson wrote:
mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Francis Russell wrote:
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
>
Micah Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That's what I meant. Maybe I use the term "relay" too "liberally"?
>> anyway, such spam is harder to stop unless you add the list relays to
>> your trusted_networks.
>
> This is something in SA that I have the har
> mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's what I meant. Maybe I use the term "relay" too "liberally"?
> > anyway, such spam is harder to stop unless you add the list relays to
> > your trusted_networks.
On 11.11.08 12:05, Micah Anderson wrote:
> This is something in SA that I have the hardest
mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Francis Russell wrote:
>> >> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> >> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> >> through, for example:
>> >>
>> >> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>> >
>> > th
> > Yes. It's also pointless imho to ise DomainKeys and DKIM both, DKIM is
> > preferred afaik.
>
> Well, I have them both to for when other people use one or the other;
> currently I'm not using either on outbound.
It is pointless to use DomainKeys SA plugin when a DKIM plugin is in use.
The DKIM
> >> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
> >> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
> >> through, for example:
> >>
> >> http://micah.riseup.net/1
> >
> > that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a different beast...
On 09
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
> that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a different beast...
I interpret those
mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally don't care of such spam (spam sent to MLs) unless there
> is a lotof it. Ideally, it should be stopped by the list server.
Unfortunately there often is, and the servers do not stop it. I notice
it especially with some sourceforge list where nearly
Francis Russell wrote:
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
> that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a differe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> On 10.11.08 04:11, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
Well, i don't care. I accept the emails passed by DKIM, anyway..
>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> so you intentionally create false negatives just because they are
(and maybe DKIM).
- if it's not forged, we do not know anything about it.
That's why the SPF_PASS and DKIM_VERIFIED scores are nearly zero by default.
Spammers use SPF, maybe they (will) use DKIM, but the last fact above makes
us safe not to trust any mail that passes SPF/DKIM checks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> mouss wrote:
>>> Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
mouss wrote:
[...]
> let's start with DKIM.
> do you have
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
+ i'm use with following rule ;;
score DKIM
>> Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
>> DKIM_VERIFIED causing the score to dip below zero and let the message
>> through, for example:
>>
>> http://micah.riseup.net/1
>
> that's spam relayed by a debian list. definitely a different beast...
I interpret those
> mouss wrote:
> > Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> >> mouss wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> let's start with DKIM.
> >>
> >>> do you have
> >>> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
> >>
> >> + i'm use with following rule ;;
> >> score DKIM_VERIFIED-45.3
> >>
> >
> > then you won't catch spam relayed b
Micah Anderson wrote:
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mouss wrote:
[...]
let's start with DKIM.
do you have
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
+ i'm use with following rule ;;
score DKIM_VERIFIED -45.3
Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mouss wrote:
> [...]
>> let's start with DKIM.
>>
>> do you have
>> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
>
> + i'm use with following rule ;;
> score DKIM_VERIFIED -45.3
Even with the default DKIM scores, I finding I am getting spam that are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mouss wrote:
> Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
>> mouss wrote:
>> [...]
>>> let's start with DKIM.
>>
>>> do you have
>>> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
>>
>> + i'm use with following rule ;;
>> score DKIM_VERIFIED-45.3
>>
>
> then you won't c
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
mouss wrote:
[...]
let's start with DKIM.
do you have
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
+ i'm use with following rule ;;
score DKIM_VERIFIED -45.3
then you won't catch spam relayed by yahoo, ... etc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mouss wrote:
[...]
> let's start with DKIM.
>
> do you have
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DKIM
+ i'm use with following rule ;;
score DKIM_VERIFIED -45.3
byunghee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
iEYEA
On 08.11.08 16:47, Neil wrote:
> Do you have any recommendations on scores for these rules?
I increased score of SPF_FAIL to 10. spfmilter usually crashes and this is
another way to implement spf checks for me :)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wi
On 8 Nov 2008, at 16:41, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
[snip]
Content analysis details: (-6.1 points, 4.5 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
Neil wrote:
[snip]
Heh, thanks for helping me out with this.
Do you have any recommendations on scores for these rules?
I use the default scores for these.
Neil wrote:
[snip]
Content analysis details: (-6.1 points, 4.5 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
This is because SA list domain has an
On 8 Nov 2008, at 12:53, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 8 Nov 2008, at 07:40, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
But still; how can I know that SPF and DKIM checks are working?
copy _this_ message (the one you are reading now) to a file:
message.eml, then (assuming a Bourne shell, not a C shell
Neil wrote:
On 8 Nov 2008, at 07:40, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
But still; how can I know that SPF and DKIM checks are working?
copy _this_ message (the one you are reading now) to a file:
message.eml, then (assuming a Bourne shell, not a C shell), run
# spamassassin -D -t < message.
On 8 Nov 2008, at 07:40, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
But still; how can I know that SPF and DKIM checks are working?
copy _this_ message (the one you are reading now) to a file:
message.eml, then (assuming a Bourne shell, not a C shell), run
# spamassassin -D -t < message.eml 2>&a
Neil wrote:
But still; how can I know that SPF and DKIM checks are working?
copy _this_ message (the one you are reading now) to a file:
message.eml, then (assuming a Bourne shell, not a C shell), run
# spamassassin -D -t < message.eml 2>&1 | tee sa.out
and check sa.out for spf and dkim.
know that SPF and DKIM checks are working?
On Fri, November 7, 2008 10:02, Neil wrote:
> My understanding is Mail::SPF is not needed if you have
> Mail::SPF::Query installed.
currect, but Mail::SPF::Query does not support SPF rr in dns, Mail::SPF does
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On 7 Nov 2008, at 04:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 07.11.08 04:02, Neil wrote:
Is there a way to check if SPFs and DKIMs are being checked by
SpamAssassin?
Here is, I believe, the relevant spamassassin -D --lint output as far
as modules go:
[19018] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver ava
34 matches
Mail list logo
