Il 09/03/2012 12.20, Simon Loewenthal ha scritto:
On 09/03/12 11:29, FC Mario Patty wrote:
I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the
outgoing server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our
server itself (in other
On 09/03/12 11:29, FC Mario Patty wrote:
> I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
>
> We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the
> outgoing server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our
> server itself (in other words, not relaying through the provider
> s
I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the outgoing
server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our server itself (in
other words, not relaying through the provider server). Thank you for the
suggestion.
Regards,
Mari
Il 09/03/2012 10.28, FC Mario Patty ha scritto:
Hi, I wonder why spamassassin detects email sent from android to our
mail server as spams? I ran spamassassin -D < the_email and got result
as below
Content analysis details: (13.8 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
Hi, I wonder why spamassassin detects email sent from android to our mail
server as spams? I ran spamassassin -D < the_email and got result as below
Content analysis details: (13.8 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
On 25 Feb 2012, at 11:17 , Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There is something in spamassassin which does recursive rDNS lookups on
> all Received: headers
No there isn’t.
--
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-03-03 18:59, xTrade Assessory skrev:
>
>> not quite ... your domain has no A record
>
> dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net a
> dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net
>
> both works here
>
first BS is querying the www record
second, BS is both works, what firstable is no answer
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-03-03 19:25, xTrade Assessory skrev:
>
>> the A record for a domain is the fall back for MTAs if no MX is
>> available
>
> what mta do try this ?
any
> , what rfc says there must be a A for every hostname pr MX ?
firstable what you wrote here does not make any se
Den 2012-03-03 19:25, xTrade Assessory skrev:
the A record for a domain is the fall back for MTAs if no MX is
available
what mta do try this ?, what rfc says there must be a A for every
hostname pr MX ?
Den 2012-03-03 19:11, Michelle Konzack skrev:
Do I miss something?
MX is not A or , but its perfectly ok
Den 2012-03-03 18:59, xTrade Assessory skrev:
not quite ... your domain has no A record
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net a
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net
both works here
Den 2012-03-03 17:43, Michelle Konzack skrev:
--[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net'
]-
dig +trace tamay-dogan.net
dig +dnssec +norecurse tamay-dogan.net
all works fine here
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello xTrade Assessory,
>
> Am 2012-03-03 14:59:16, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> not quite ... your domain has no A record
> Ehm:
>
> tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN MX 10 mail.tamay-dogan.net.
> mail.tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN A 78.47.247.21
>
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-03 14:59:16, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> not quite ... your domain has no A record
Ehm:
tamay-dogan.net.3600IN MX 10 mail.tamay-dogan.net.
mail.tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN A 78.47.247.21
Do I miss something?
> Hans
Th
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello xTrade Assessory,
>
> Am 2012-03-01 16:27:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> your domain has no A Record
> --[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net' ]-
> ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
> tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN SOA
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-01 16:27:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> your domain has no A Record
--[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net' ]-
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
tamay-dogan.net.3600IN SOA dns1.tamay-dogan.net.
hostmas
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:18:56 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello RW,
>
> Am 2012-02-25 22:42:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> > I think that this is pretty conclusive that it's nothing to do with
> > Spamassassin. It doesn't look anything like what I'd expect for a
> > Spamassassin-based r
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Bowie Bailey,
>
> Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
>> message that mentioned SA.
> Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content, but
> the MAILER-DA
On 3/1/2012 1:25 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Bowie Bailey,
>
> Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
>> message that mentioned SA.
>
> Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content,
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
> message that mentioned SA.
Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content, but
the MAILER-DAEMON message had included 6-8 line
On 3/1/2012 10:10 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>> That sounds like an MTA configuration. Why do you think it is related
>> to SA?
>
> Because the error messages are based on SA values.
Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
message that mentioned SA.
--
Bowie
Hello RW,
Am 2012-02-25 22:42:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I think that this is pretty conclusive that it's nothing to do with
> Spamassassin. It doesn't look anything like what I'd expect for a
> Spamassassin-based rejection. I looks like some basic MTA check.
>
> Another thing is tha
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-02-27 11:00:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Ok. So you DO have rDNS, just not a customized one. That should not
> cause problems in most cases.
Right but this conflicts wit SSL certs
> That sounds like an MTA configuration. Why do you think it is related
> to
On 2/25/2012 2:07 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Bowie Bailey,
>
> Am 2012-02-24 12:42:02, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> Why not? It doesn't have to be specific. "public41.tamay-dogan.net"
>> would work fine. What is the downside of having a rDNS entry?
>
> ...because my ISP @office (Alic
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:17:36 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > You haven't quoted any rules that are firing inappropriately. Do you
> > have any evidence that this is anything to do with Spamassassin or
> > reverse dns?
>
> ...because it is NOT my spamassassin which reject MY mails.
So there's
Hello Joe Sniderman,
Am 2012-02-24 18:45:52, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> > c) Public mail server mail.tamay-dogan.net (78.47.247.21)
> > d) Receiving mail server
> So far, so good.
> > If now d) is runing spamassassin, thaen my messages are to 90% rejected.
> Strange. What
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-02-24 12:42:02, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Why not? It doesn't have to be specific. "public41.tamay-dogan.net"
> would work fine. What is the downside of having a rDNS entry?
...because my ISP @office (Alice) offer only fixed IP (85.182.220.41)
with only b
Hello RW,
Am 2012-02-24 14:00:11, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> As far as positive scoring rules are concerned, Spamassassin should only
> care about the reverse dns of the last external relay, and
> mail.tamay-dogan.net has impeccable dns.
Right, and it was a problem with spamassassin on a
On 02/24/2012 06:23 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
> receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding "set invisible"
> in the "global" section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
> spamassassin consider my
Am 24.02.2012 15:00, schrieb RW:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:32:35 +0100
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> > I am not realy sure if this fixes your problem but i have set
>> >
>> > score RDNS_NONE 0
>> >
>> > cause the "default" points at this parameter looks like nonsense to me
>> > i have also a scena
24.2.2012 13:23, Michelle Konzack kirjoitti:
> In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
> receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding "set invisible"
> in the "global" section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
> spamassassin consider my ma
On 2/24/2012 6:23 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
> receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding "set invisible"
> in the "global" section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
> spamassassin consider my mails a
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:23:21 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem
> (the receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding "set
> invisible" in the "global" section)
That doesn't sound like like a optimum solution unless you're
Am 24.02.2012 12:23, schrieb Michelle Konzack:
> In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
> receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding "set invisible"
> in the "global" section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
> spamassassin consider my
34 matches
Mail list logo
