ll be honest, I'm not familiar with the host command,
it's a replacement of the old nslookup.
so maybe these
commands don't mean a thing. But I do know that I get positive hits on
spamcop all the time (on real spam messages, that is), so I can do some
dns tests in SA.
Skip
he host command, so maybe these
commands don't mean a thing. But I do know that I get positive hits on
spamcop all the time (on real spam messages, that is), so I can do some
dns tests in SA.
Skip
--
Get my PGP Public key here:
http://pelorus.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 14:58 21-07-2008, Skip wrote:
I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
host and what I got in response. *sigh*
What response did you expect? :-)
Regards,
-sm
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:58 -0400, Skip wrote:
> I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
> host and what I got in response. *sigh*
>
> Maybe tomorrow I'll have better luck with them.
>
> FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> SITE: pelorus.org
> ADDR: 68.231.250.115
>
> Why w
I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
host and what I got in response. *sigh*
Maybe tomorrow I'll have better luck with them.
FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SITE: pelorus.org
ADDR: 68.231.250.115
Why would I be getting this on box106?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]# host 2.0
so you have a DNS problem.
if you can run a dns server on your shared host, do so. otherwise, you
can't use dns tests reliably.
As for the CPU exceeded error that a few of you got (if you went to
website, pelorus.org), that happens occasionally if I am doing something
CPU inten
@pelorus.org>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
X-Rcpt-To:
Skip wrote on Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:57:22 -0400:
> I'm
> pretty sure all they do is stop serving up web pages when you get a in
> CPU exceeded situation. I don't think they'd turn off internal DNS lookups.
Why not? They sure thro
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In
this thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible
DNS problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold
for spamhaus. All they say
Skip wrote:
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In
this thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible
DNS problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold
for spamhaus. All they say at the spamhaus
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > I got this:
> > $ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
> > Host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
^^^
> I see the same thing.
Woops! We both just copy&pasted the same typo. :-) This should work:
Skip wrote:
I got this:
$ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
Host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
That can't be good. I do not know what dns server we are using at
bluehost. I did a ps and searched for anything that looked like a dns
server, but couldn't find any. Sometimes i
Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> try:
>>
>> $ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
>> 2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
>> 2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.10
>> 2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.2
>>
>> BTW, what DNS server(s) are you using?
[...]
>
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In
this thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible
DNS problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold
for spamhaus. All they say at the spamhaus FAQ is that i
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In this
thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible DNS
problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold for
spamhaus. All they say at the spamhaus FAQ is that if you exceed the
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Please do not top-post (google if you are unfamiliar with the term). And as
already advised, just set s
Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
> have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Please do not top-post (google if you are unfamiliar with the term). And as
already advised, just set score to 0 to disable individu
Hi!
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Just score the tests you want to disable 0.
Same answer, just score them 0.
Bye,
Raymond.
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I
should have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Skip
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
different resolver, but could not find such a configuration o
Hi!
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
different resolver, but could not find such a configuration option.
What is the generally approved way to disable individual RBL checks? I can
easily disable all of them, but I haven't figured out how to disable
indivi
Wow, I wonder how I am going to convince Bluehost that they are having
issues.
What's the best way to disable individual RBL checks? I'm also
curious which tests you consider to be most effective on your system.
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
differ
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Skip wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:19:07 -0400:
As for too many connection per day, my domain certainly does not
generate anywhere near the 100,000 connections spamhaus considers as the
cutoff, but I'll be my host (bluehost) does. If all they check is
originating IP a
On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:31, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Skip wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:19:07 -0400:
As for too many connection per day, my domain certainly does not
generate anywhere near the 100,000 connections spamhaus considers
as the
cutoff, but I'll be my host (bluehost)
Skip wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:19:07 -0400:
> As for too many connection per day, my domain certainly does not
> generate anywhere near the 100,000 connections spamhaus considers as the
> cutoff, but I'll be my host (bluehost) does. If all they check is
> originating IP address, then I'm su
le the spamhaus check. Or, if
it is still working, why is mine not?
possibly because you (or your dns forwarder) generate(s) too many
connections per day:
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
2) What can I do in procmail to check to make sure the DNS tests
were complet
Or, if
it is still working, why is mine not?
possibly because you (or your dns forwarder) generate(s) too many
connections per day:
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
2) What can I do in procmail to check to make sure the DNS tests were
completed? Maybe give each m
ll working, why is mine not?
possibly because you (or your dns forwarder) generate(s) too many
connections per day:
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
2) What can I do in procmail to check to make sure the DNS tests were
completed? Maybe give each mail a second or
why is mine not?
2) What can I do in procmail to check to make sure the DNS tests were
completed? Maybe give each mail a second or third chance to get the DNS
checks done. I'll probably have to pick one or two of them and call
them vital, and run a check against them just to see if i
> > don't modify "standard" rule files.
> >
> > instead, create a /path/to/site/rules/scores.cf (same directory where
> > you have local.cf) and override the scores there (use a 0 score to
> > disable a test). look at 50_scores.cf to get an idea.
> >
> > I hope you have valid reasons to disable
Robert - elists wrote:
don't modify "standard" rule files.
instead, create a /path/to/site/rules/scores.cf (same directory where
you have local.cf) and override the scores there (use a 0 score to
disable a test). look at 50_scores.cf to get an idea.
I hope you have valid reasons to disable n
>
> You probably know this, but make sure you put the zeroed-out scores in
> your local config dir (i.e. /etc/mail/spamassassin or the like) so that
> they won't be overwritten the next time you upgrade and/or run sa-update.
>
> --
> Kelson Vibber
> SpeedGate Communications
Kelson
Thanks, I h
>
> don't modify "standard" rule files.
>
> instead, create a /path/to/site/rules/scores.cf (same directory where
> you have local.cf) and override the scores there (use a 0 score to
> disable a test). look at 50_scores.cf to get an idea.
>
> I hope you have valid reasons to disable network te
Robert - elists wrote:
Are all tests for DNS type RBL's in this default 20_dnsbl_tests.cf SA file?
Do I need to grep all the other files to check for where the scores are, or
is there only one default score file on this?
If you use sa-update, there should also be some in 72_active.cf. Either
Robert - elists wrote:
My searching came up a tad short on this...
I am guessing there is a howto already on this, I just didn't find it, so I
went digging in the internals some more.
Are all tests for DNS type RBL's in this default 20_dnsbl_tests.cf SA file?
Do I need to grep all the other fi
My searching came up a tad short on this...
I am guessing there is a howto already on this, I just didn't find it, so I
went digging in the internals some more.
Are all tests for DNS type RBL's in this default 20_dnsbl_tests.cf SA file?
Do I need to grep all the other files to check for where th
> Actually my DNS is working fine. Other DNS rulesets are hitting fine
> like RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
>
> In order to get URI tests working I have to put rbl_timeout 40 in my
> local.cf
> The default rbl_timeout of 15 is too less, but that is strange. It had
> been working with my older SA 3.1.5 tho
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 09:34 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:48:04PM +0530, ram wrote:
> > [8454] dbg: dns: success for 0 of 29 queries
> > [8454] dbg: dns: timeout for after 10 seconds
> >
> > but dig on the machine is working fine without any issues.
> > my user_prefs
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:43:28PM +0200, arni wrote:
> >Please do not reply to this email address as it has been automatically
> >generated, but email any queries to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> are you realising, that you're "spamming" a mailinglist here?
fyi, I sent a mail to their support addr (above
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Server .116
The email attached has been identified by one of our team as legitimate but
unfortunately was incorrectly tagged as SPAM.
The email address has been whitelisted to ensure this will not happen again and
we are currently looking into the reasons why this h
Server .116
The email attached has been identified by one of our team as legitimate but
unfortunately was incorrectly tagged as SPAM.
The email address has been whitelisted to ensure this will not happen again and
we are currently looking into the reasons why this happened.
No mail has been lo
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:48:04PM +0530, ram wrote:
> [8454] dbg: dns: success for 0 of 29 queries
> [8454] dbg: dns: timeout for after 10 seconds
>
> but dig on the machine is working fine without any issues.
> my user_prefs file shows dns_available yes
> and I have Net::DNS
Is the first DN
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ram wrote:
Hi,
I have been using SA 3.1.5 for a long time now.
I am testing SA 3.2 on a test machine before upgrade. Something seeems
to be missing , none of the uridnsbl tests are working
when I run SA in debug mode I can see
8454] dbg: check: running tests
Hi,
I have been using SA 3.1.5 for a long time now.
I am testing SA 3.2 on a test machine before upgrade. Something seeems
to be missing , none of the uridnsbl tests are working
when I run SA in debug mode I can see
8454] dbg: check: running tests for priority: 500
[8454] dbg: d
OK, Got it. Anyway, I tracked down the timing issues which drove me to
disable DNS tests to a problem with my nameservers. Now the scanning
times reported by Amavis are similar to the other servers I have. BTW,
thanks for the tip, I've disabled CBL testings in Postfix.
Luix
2007/5/11, R
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Luis Hernán Otegui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 May 2007 14:33
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Disabling some DNS tests
>
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Luis Hern?n Otegui wrote:
Hi, list, I'm currently running zen.spamhaus.org and cbl.abuseat.org
as RBLs over Postfix, how can I disable them in SA? (I mean, if I'm
already blocking connections which got listed in those RBLs, why let
SA check them? I suppose it should lower sc
Hi, list, I'm currently running zen.spamhaus.org and cbl.abuseat.org
as RBLs over Postfix, how can I disable them in SA? (I mean, if I'm
already blocking connections which got listed in those RBLs, why let
SA check them? I suppose it should lower scan times...)
Thanks,
Luix
--
---
Hi,
I have seen that dns tests for the same mail sent twice ( to different
recipients ) give inconsistent results
The first mail got hit by RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS and the second did not
( I use a local caching name server ). I cant figure out why ?
Has this occurred to anybody else ?
Thanks
Ram
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "shane mullins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 5:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: DNS tests
>
>
> >> On Friday, December 31, 2004, 2:15:51 PM, shane mullins wr
On Friday, December 31, 2004, 2:15:51 PM, shane mullins wrote:
> The Net::DNS module is ver 0.48.
>> Our secondary spam box is not performing dns tests. The perl mod dns
> is
>> installed and the dns_available option is set in the local.cf. Does
>> anyone have any sugg
The Net::DNS module is ver 0.48.
Shane
- Original Message -
From: "shane mullins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: DNS tests
> Our secondary spam box is not performing dns tests. The perl mod dns
is
> installed and the d
Our secondary spam box is not performing dns tests. The perl mod dns is
installed and the dns_available option is set in the local.cf. Does
anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks
Shane
G'day.
Has anyone else noticed problems with the DNS-based URI tests in
SpamAssassin 3.0.[01]? Specifically, running on Solaris 9, Perl 5.8.5,
and SpamAssassin 3.0.0 and .1 that the "urirhssub" and "uridnsbl" tests
are not even being called from spamd. However, they work fine from a
direct
52 matches
Mail list logo
