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
On 10.10.11 13:14, 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?
No. All the backup MX servers must be in internal_networks too
I know,
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=3.086, FSL_H
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:14:21 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
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
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:14:21 +0200 (CEST), Tomas Macek wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
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 #
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 mail from internal network 2
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
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 li
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
thanks for all your help it seems as thou it was a corrupt AWL database. I
nuked it and everything seems to be fine.
I'm going to look more into smtp auth. Seems like such a simple way to lock
down mail, and prevent relaying. For some reason I remember looking into
smtp auth and deciding it wasn
On 29.09.10 08:00, njjrdell wrote:
> one of our users at a remote location is having her mail trashed by
> spamassassin.
>
> Sep 28 12:48:43 nsmail spamd[199]: prefork: child states: II\n
> Sep 28 12:49:28 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: connection from localhost
> [127.0.0.1] at port 50226\n
> Sep 28
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_MX
> scantime=1.
> 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
I'm pretty sure she would not send a GTUBE. Here is another from her
Sep 28 08:35:26 nsmail spamd[207]: prefork: child states: II\n
Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 50098\n
Sep 28 08:35:55 nsmail spamd[287]: spamd: checking message
<000b01cb5
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, njjrdell wrote:
Hello,
one of our users at a remote location is having her mail trashed by
spamassassin.
Sep 28 12:48:43 nsmail spamd[199]: prefork: child states: II\n
Sep 28 12:49:28 nsmail spamd[268]: spamd: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 50226\n
Sep 28 12
> 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_MX
which means, Outlook E
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 your
network by an outside host.
ie: t
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
