On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:14:21 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
OK, this should be good:
trusted_networks 213.0.0.5 213.0.0.10 # primary mx IP and backup
mx IP
internal_networks 213.0.0.5 # only the IP of primary mx
Right?
On 10.10.11 16:40, Benny Pedersen wrote:
backup is i
will send to you.
hope that helps, if not post sample on pastebin, and just mangle
sender donain with example.org
But there is still the question what bad happened when DOS_OE_TO_MX
matched the message?
because the client used outlook express and has sent mail directly to
destination (your
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:37:53 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
[snip]
No, there is not ALL_TRUSTED in the headers. I'm sorry, I did not
write here the rules that matched the message, so here it is:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.988 tagged_above=3 required=5
tests=[DOS_OE_TO_MX=
r
donain with example.org
But there is still the question what bad happened when DOS_OE_TO_MX
matched the message?
yes, check if msg is with ALL_TRUSTED test or not
The client sent the mail from internal network 213.x.x.x/y from his
public static IP through our mailserver into some mailbox ho
on what bad happened when DOS_OE_TO_MX
matched the message?
yes, check if msg is with ALL_TRUSTED test or not
The client sent the mail from internal network 213.x.x.x/y from his
public static IP through our mailserver into some mailbox hosted on
our mailserver. I think I must have some misconfigura
On Oct 10, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Tomas Macek wrote:
>> hope that helps, if not post sample on pastebin, and just mangle sender
>> donain with example.org
>
> But there is still the question what bad happened when DOS_OE_TO_MX matched
> the message?
> The client sent the ma
at bad happened when DOS_OE_TO_MX
matched the message?
The client sent the mail from internal network
213.x.x.x/y from his public static IP through our mailserver into some
mailbox hosted on our mailserver. I think I must have some
misconfiguration in spamassassin...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:19:56 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
I suggest something like this:
trusted_networks 213.x.x.x/y # all our public ip addresses range
internal_networks 213.0.0.5 # let's say that's our mailserver's IP
the above should only list all the mailserver(s) you have as isp, not
d outgoing
mail traffic to/from all of our domains. We are ISP.
Our customer complained about false positive mail with DOS_OE_TO_MX.
How exactly this rule works? Should I add all my range 213.x.x.x/y to the
trusted_networks and my mailserver should be added to the
internal_networks?
I guess
\n
>> Sep 28 12:49:29 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: identified spam (288.2/5.0) for
>> (unknown):500 in 1.2 seconds, 2345 bytes.\n
>> Sep 28 12:49:29 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: result: Y 288 -
>> AWL,BAYES_40,DOS_OE_TO_MX,FAKE_REPLY_C
>> scantime=1.2,size=2345,user=(unknow
nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: result: Y 288 -
> AWL,BAYES_40,DOS_OE_TO_MX,FAKE_REPLY_C
> scantime=1.2,size=2345,user=(unknown),uid=500,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=50226,mid=<001101cb5f2d$1c3937b0$6629a...@traci>,bayes=0.297864,autolearn=no\n
>
> I'm trying
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:32 -0700, njjrdell wrote:
> Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: identified spam (4006.3/5.0) for
> (unknown):500 in 1.0 seconds, 142218 bytes.\n
> Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: result: Y 4006 -
> AWL,BAYES_50,DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,DOS_OE_TO_M
> From: njjrdell [mailto:nruggi...@dellmagazines.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:05 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: DOS_OE_TO_MX
>
>
> also, won't whitelisting her address open her up for spoofing?
AWL has nothing to do with whitel
m: njjrdell [mailto:nruggi...@dellmagazines.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:32 AM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: DOS_OE_TO_MX
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure she would not send a GTUBE. Here is another from her
>>
>&
> -Original Message-
> From: njjrdell [mailto:nruggi...@dellmagazines.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: DOS_OE_TO_MX
>
>
> I'm pretty sure she would not send a GTUBE. Here is another
ssage
<000b01cb5f6e$b1bbfe80$6629a...@traci> for (unknown):500\n
Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: identified spam (4006.3/5.0) for
(unknown):500 in 1.0 seconds, 142218 bytes.\n
Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: result: Y 4006 -
AWL,BAYES_50,DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,DOS_OE_TO_MX
scanti
YES_40,DOS_OE_TO_MX,FAKE_REPLY_C
scantime=1.2,size=2345,user=(unknown),uid=500,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=50226,mid=<001101cb5f2d$1c3937b0$6629a...@traci>,bayes=0.297864,autolearn=no\n
I'm trying to track down why this message is getting such a high score. I
: checking message
<001101cb5f2d$1c3937b0$6629a...@traci> for (unknown):500\n
Sep 28 12:49:29 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: identified spam (288.2/5.0) for
(unknown):500 in 1.2 seconds, 2345 bytes.\n
Sep 28 12:49:29 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: result: Y 288 -
AWL,BAYES_40,DOS_OE_TO_MX,FAKE_REPLY_C
scanti
On 06/03/2008 11:15 AM, R.Smits wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have tried to change the score for : DOS_OE_TO_MX because we have a
> lot of false positives with this rule.
>
> It gives 2.75 points.
> This is defined in the /var/lib/spamassassin/etc directory.
>
> I have pu
On 06.03.08 17:15, R.Smits wrote:
> I have tried to change the score for : DOS_OE_TO_MX because we have a
> lot of false positives with this rule.
We had the same problem when they were sending e-mail to our clients (with
no intermediate mailserver) without SMTP authentication. We advised t
Hello,
I have tried to change the score for : DOS_OE_TO_MX because we have a
lot of false positives with this rule.
It gives 2.75 points.
This is defined in the /var/lib/spamassassin/etc directory.
I have put the usual score statement in the local.cf , but it does not
work ? With the other
On 24/02/2008 10:06 AM, giga328 wrote:
> Client in example is Outlook Express at 89.110.202.24 also in trusted
> networks.
> Relevant configuration lines are:
> trusted_networks 212.62.32.0/19
> trusted_networks 89.110.192.0/18
Not that this is the cause of your problem, but I'm wondering why
89.
r MX and for clients and I
would like to configure SpamAssassin to trust users relayed by
mtaout1.isp.ptt.rs from my example.
Regards,
Giga
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-tp15659736p15669827.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 23.02.08 17:34, giga328 wrote:
> I'm testing SpamAssassin and I'm getting false positives. Both tests
> ALL_TRUSTED and DOS_OE_TO_MX are firing for emails sent by Outlook Express
> for local clients and it seems like I have something wrong in *_networks.
> Here is my setup
oted-printable
dva su dela
--=_NextPart_000_000A_01C876F7.C1872B80
Content-Type: text/html;
.charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
dva su dela
--=_NextPart_000_000A_01C876F7.C1872B80--
This is just sample email, not representing ham or sp
On 23/02/2008 8:34 PM, giga328 wrote:
> I'm testing SpamAssassin and I'm getting false positives. Both tests
> ALL_TRUSTED and DOS_OE_TO_MX are firing for emails sent by Outlook Express
> for local clients and it seems like I have something wrong in *_networks.
> Here is my s
I'm testing SpamAssassin and I'm getting false positives. Both tests
ALL_TRUSTED and DOS_OE_TO_MX are firing for emails sent by Outlook Express
for local clients and it seems like I have something wrong in *_networks.
Here is my setup:
All my servers and my clients IP are in truste
Andrew Hearn wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure why DOS_OE_TO_MX fired on this message, as the headers say
it was delivered to b.painless.aaisp.net.uk which relayed it on to
z.hopeless.aaisp.net.uk.
b.painless isn't the MX for the domain...
SA support for IPv6 is currently non-existent
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Hearn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:27 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Not sure why DOS_OE_TO_MX fired
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure why DOS_OE_TO_MX fired on this mess
Hello,
I'm not sure why DOS_OE_TO_MX fired on this message, as the headers say
it was delivered to b.painless.aaisp.net.uk which relayed it on to
z.hopeless.aaisp.net.uk.
b.painless isn't the MX for the domain...
Any ideas? -Thanks!
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Env
> Paolo De Marco wrote:
> >I can't understand the test DOS_OE_TO_MX.
> >Can anyone tell me what this test does?
On 11.10.07 14:07, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> My rule: Outlook Express Sent mail directly to Your MX
>
> DOS_ OE_ TO_
Paolo De Marco wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't understand the test DOS_OE_TO_MX.
> Can anyone tell me what this test does?
> Thanks
>
>From reading the rule "code", it appears to detect if a message claiming
to be generated by Outlook Express was delivered directly to you
Paolo De Marco wrote:
Hi,
I can't understand the test DOS_OE_TO_MX.
Can anyone tell me what this test does?
My rule: Outlook Express Sent mail directly to Your MX
DOS_ OE_ TO_MX
Daryl
Hi,
I can't understand the test DOS_OE_TO_MX.
Can anyone tell me what this test does?
Thanks
--
Paolo De Marco
Real Comm srl
Tel. +39 0434 923134
34 matches
Mail list logo
