On 09/06/2016 16:57, Sidney Markowitz [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
> As to why you should have to list all the internal ip addresses again
> in the
> list of trusted ones ... Because the people who designed this had to
> keep all
> this in their head at one time and they did by thinking "This is the
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:50:55 -0700 (MST)
jimimaseye wrote:
> (Note: For clarity, the
> https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
> link you provided IS the page I refer to when I say "reading the
> wiki".)
>
> Ok, reading it again: it says
> /
> //"trusted_netwo
jimimaseye wrote on 10/06/16 1:50 AM:
> CONCLUSION: it was working as the book says (even though the book is not
> clear WHY the book says what it says).
It's been a very long while since I worked with this code and I have to kind
of twist my mind up funny to keep it in my head all at once, but t
(Note: For clarity, the
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
link you provided IS the page I refer to when I say "reading the wiki".)
Ok, reading it again: it says
/
//"trusted_networks IPaddress[/masklen] ... (default: none)//
//
//What networks or hos
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:54:34 -0700 (MST)
jimimaseye wrote:
> FEEDBACK for all who have contributed:
>
> I have a result.
>
> It seems that the 'internal_networks' is only adhered to *in the
> absence* of a 'trusted_networks' entry. If I remove the
> 'trusted_networks', and simply leave:
>
> i
FEEDBACK for all who have contributed:
I have a result.
It seems that the 'internal_networks' is only adhered to *in the absence* of
a 'trusted_networks' entry. If I remove the 'trusted_networks', and simply
leave:
internal_networks 195.26.90.
then it is correctly applied:
X-Spam-Report:
Yes it is but it all still works just as the linux version does. So is
irrelevant actually (the only difference being its easier to install and
setup on windows.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Advice-why-one-relay-evaluated-and-not-the-other-tp1211
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0700 (MST)
jimimaseye wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 21:26, David B Funk [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
> > Try running SA with the '--debug' option to see the explicit list of
> > config files that it is reading. Make sure that it's reading yours
> > and look at the ones that com
On 08/06/2016 21:26, David B Funk [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
> This sounds like a config file confusion issue. IE the SA that you are
> running
> is looking at different config files than the ones that you are editing
> or some config file that is being read -after- your expected config files
> is
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, jimimaseye wrote:
On 08/06/2016 16:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
note that if a server acts as your MX, it should be listed in
internal_networks, no matter if other company manages it.
That applies for backup MX servers for your dom
On 08/06/2016 16:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
> note that if a server acts as your MX, it should be listed in
> internal_networks, no matter if other company manages it.
>
> That applies for backup MX servers for your domain, or, even primary
> MX if
> you fetch mail from
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:49:17 +0100, jimimaseye
wrote:
Regarding the range: the range belongs to our mail host provider who
receive the emails then pass them amongst their own servers (doing their
own teats no doubt). Plus they dont have just the one address - an
incoming emial can land at an
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:59:26 +0100
Kevin Golding wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:49:17 +0100, jimimaseye
> wrote:
>
> > Regarding the range: the range belongs to our mail host provider
> > who receive the emails then pass them amongst their own servers
> > (doing their own teats no doubt). P
> > Did you restart spamd?
> >
>
> Effectively yes (but no not really). I am using commandline scanner
> whilst doing the tests so the LOCAL.CF is being loaded each time I run
> the test. When it is all working then I will restart my spamd daemon to
> take effect for all incoming mail. P
I did also test the TRUSTED_NETWORKS option as well (note: I tried
"trusted" and "internal" network options before resorting to this
maillist for advice).
It results in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mailserver
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3
On 08/06/2016 14:51, RW-15 [via SpamAssassin] wrote:
> > * internal_networks 195.26.90.*
>
> Try to avoid using any mark-up (assuming that's what the "*"s are), it
> can be very confusing.
>
Noted. And well observed. (The asterix was markup (bold) not wildcard
entered by me.)
> > X-Mailer: Ap
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:49:17 +0100, jimimaseye
wrote:
Regarding the range: the range belongs to our mail host provider who
receive the emails then pass them amongst their own servers (doing their
own teats no doubt). Plus they dont have just the one address - an
incoming emial can land at a
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:07:14 -0700 (MST)
jimimaseye wrote:
> * internal_networks 195.26.90.*
Try to avoid using any mark-up (assuming that's what the "*"s are), it
can be very confusing.
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
> X-hMailServer-Spam: YES
> X-hMailServer-Reason-1: Rejected by Spamhaus. -
Hi Kevin
I have entered the internal_network address as
internal_networks 195.26.90/24
and even
internal_networks 195.26.90.72
and it never made a difference. Very strange.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=3.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:07:14 +0100, jimimaseye
wrote:
I did try adding the "internal_networks 195.26.90. " option to my
LOCAL.CF
before, and in fact I have just tried it again based on your advice, but
it
doesnt make any difference. Here are the headers with
* internal_networks 195.26.
Kevin Golding-2 wrote
> Given the PBL listing is only the last external IP the fact that SA is
> testing headers in your internal network explains why it's not testing an
> IP one hop further out. Essentially it seems as if your internal_networks
> is incorrectly set. Or, as your pasted confi
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 07:22:19 +0100, jimimaseye
wrote:
1, You can see that Spamassassin considered and evaluated the IP address
195.26.90.72 (as reported in its report). Now this is the SECOND
received
header in the list. And yet it doesnt evaluate the most recent (first on
list) [195.26
22 matches
Mail list logo
