Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 23:54 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Your issue is kind of weird and far less than common. Read, I cannot
recall coming across such a report *ever* on this list.
Thus, the collective list's lack of pin-pointing the cause with the info
given
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 23:54 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Your issue is kind of weird and far less than common. Read, I cannot
> recall coming across such a report *ever* on this list.
>
> Thus, the collective list's lack of pin-pointing the cause with the info
> given. The very reason we ne
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>
>>> The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
>>> through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
>>
>> This sounds to me like you a
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent
> runs through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
>> On 17.06.10 12:13, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>> Hmmm, this mail came in and went straight to the users inbox. 1.
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 08:22 -0500, David Morton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/17/10 11:13 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>
> > Postfix ---> 2. Amavis ( Spamd/Clamd) ---> 3. Postfix ---> 4.
> > Dovecot-deliver
>
> > No, I run a script on the mail server manually th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/17/10 11:13 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Postfix ---> 2. Amavis ( Spamd/Clamd) ---> 3. Postfix ---> 4.
> Dovecot-deliver
> No, I run a script on the mail server manually that simply moves the
> files. Then I check with spamassassin.
I wonder ab
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Using sendmail without certain areguments will cause the To: field to
show up as .
Nothing would make sendmail write a bogus header like that one. That is
not a valid email address. This is valid:
To: undisclosed recipients:;
It's the list syntax with a null list. Th
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 13:33 -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Charles Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> > > I have no problem going over there but I am not convinced that the
> > > Amavis program is the problem. The header field is changed by
> > > spamassassin. Doesn't
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I have no problem going over there but I am not convinced that the
Amavis program is the problem. The header field is changed by
spamassassin. Doesn't the email simply get handed to Spamassasin by
Amavis where the headers are mo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I have no problem going over there but I am not convinced that the
Amavis program is the problem. The header field is changed by
spamassassin. Doesn't the email simply get handed to Spamassasin by
Amavis where the headers are modified by spam report et
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
Charles Gregory wrote:
This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail
David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
get us added to lists, but Michael stated "then, check the blacklists to
see how to get removed." as if we are already on a list. We are not.
Back to the main issue.
Here is an example pastbin. http://pastebin.com/mJqRPzkv
I f
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Randy Ramsdell,
Am 2010-06-17 10:38:08, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there
are no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
Hehehe... sounds like a
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>> The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
>>> through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
> Charles Gregory wrote:
>> This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail from a local
>> address to your mail se
Hello Randy Ramsdell,
Am 2010-06-17 10:38:08, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there
> are no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
> seeing these in the past.
Hehehe... sounds like a new customer of me...
His ma
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> get us added to lists, but Michael stated "then, check the blacklists to
> see how to get removed." as if we are already on a list. We are not.
>
> Back to the main issue.
>
> Here is an example pastbin. http://pastebin.com/mJqRPzkv
>
> I found this mes
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Hmmm, this mail came in and went straight to the users inbox. 1. Postfix
---> 2. Amavis ( Spamd/Clamd) ---> 3. Postfix ---> 4. Dovecot-deliver
So the problem is somewhere during the 2 --- > 3 or step 3 or 4. Step 4 it
is unlikely since Deliver simply
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail from a local
address to your mail server, rather than
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail from a local address
to your mail server, rather than 'feeding' the original
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 11:31 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I just checked our spam reports and this rule never hits. It is not
locally generated email either or I can not find any coming from us.
This is an strange issue and I am not where to begin to determine
what is doing this.
On 6/17/10 11:31 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I just checked our spam reports and this rule never hits. It is not
locally generated email either or I can not find any coming from us.
This is an strange issue and I am not where to begin to determine what
is doing this.
if you have an insecure
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 10:38 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are
no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
its coming from you then :-(
or, your mail server is stripping
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 10:38 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are
no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
its coming from you then :-(
or, your mail server is stripping
On 6/17/10 10:38 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are
no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall seeing
these in the past.
its coming from you then :-(
or, your mail server is stripping out or not adding headers.
24 matches
Mail list logo
