age a few plugins of my own for installation on other systems
and hence you mangle the spamassassin package itself?
oh my lord..
[root@mail-gw:~]$ rpm -qa | grep spamassassin | sort
spamassassin-3.4.4-1.fc31.x86_64
spamassassin-bogofilter-1.0-8.fc31.20200204.rh.noarch
spamassassin-clamav-
smart people would have opened koji, enter spamasssin,, select the F31
package from
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=554 and
downloaded
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/spamassassin/3.4.4/1.fc31/x86_64/spamassassin-3.4.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
or just used "dnf
On 2/4/2020 5:12 PM, Chris Conn wrote:
On 2/4/2020 5:09 PM, Damian wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 maybe?
Hello,
You were correct; using 3.4.3 on fedora with milter-spamc, pretty much
every email would match DKIM_INVALID when handled by the MTA and
cor
On 2/4/2020 5:09 PM, Damian wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 maybe?
Hello,
HM, very possible. I am using milter-spamc but the behaviour might be
similar. I will look to build 3.4.4 and see if I get better DKIM
returns. Thanks for this.
Chris
I am runni
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 maybe?
> I am running SA3.4.3 and I noticed that I am scoring DKIM_INVALID on
> pretty much each and every email handled by the MTA. However, if I take
> the raw .eml and pipe it through spamassassin -t -D, I receive a
> DKIM_VALID score.
>
On 4 Feb 2020, at 16:32, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
I am running SA3.4.3 and I noticed that I am scoring DKIM_INVALID on
pretty much each and every email handled by the MTA. However, if I
take the raw .eml and pipe it through spamassassin -t -D, I receive a
DKIM_VALID score.
Any tips on how
1.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
The score for this rule should be a zero or a near-zero.
There must be some problem with assigning a score to
such test rule (the 1.0 is a default value if a score line
is missing).
T_DKIM_INVALID is a test rule, as such its sc
On 2015-05-03 5:34, Nick Edwards wrote:
Is there any reason
reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error"
to fail t_dkim_invalid
1.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
This is published a neutral so should not be considered invalid
This
Am 03.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Nick Edwards:
On 5/3/15, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards:
Is there any reason
reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error"
to fail t_dkim_invalid
yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and s
On 5/3/15, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards:
>> Is there any reason
>>
>> reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error"
>> to fail t_dkim_invalid
>
> yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and so produces false
> positives
>
>
Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards:
Is there any reason
reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error"
to fail t_dkim_invalid
yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and so produces false
positives
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signa
11 matches
Mail list logo
