On Wednesday 02 August 2017 at 13:17:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> Just testing, as the list has been silent for me for a week or so.
See https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/
Antony.
--
I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way
is
> On 15 Feb 2016, at 02:12, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016, RW wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:22:36 +0800
>> Tino de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>> I have some trouble filtering my spam, as everything I try from the
>>> commandline works fine (spamc -t < spam.eml , where spam.eml is a
>>
> On 15 Feb 2016, at 02:12, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016, RW wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:22:36 +0800
>> Tino de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>> I have some trouble filtering my spam, as everything I try from the
>>> commandline works fine (spamc -t < spam.eml , where spam.eml is a
>>
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016, RW wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:22:36 +0800
Tino de Bruijn wrote:
I have some trouble filtering my spam, as everything I try from the
commandline works fine (spamc -t < spam.eml , where spam.eml is a
spam message i dragged out of Mail.app and uploaded to the server),
but
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:22:36 +0800
Tino de Bruijn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some trouble filtering my spam, as everything I try from the
> commandline works fine (spamc -t < spam.eml , where spam.eml is a
> spam message i dragged out of Mail.app and uploaded to the server),
> but when delivered to
Am 14.02.2016 um 05:22 schrieb Tino de Bruijn:
I have some trouble filtering my spam, as everything I try from the
commandline works fine (spamc -t < spam.eml , where spam.eml is a spam
message i dragged out of Mail.app and uploaded to the server), but when
delivered to SA by my MTA (Haraka), i
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that
because you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies
>> I never said it was.
>>
>> What I said was that when it’s coming from a server that doesn’t
>> except inbound messages (and hence can’t generate bounces) THEN it’s
>> a sign of Spam.
>Since when does a server handling outbound traffic have to accept
>inbound mail?
>Any setup with more than a do
On 09/24/2015 06:17 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for
debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't
blo
On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
>>>
>>> if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that
>>> because you violating RFC
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:30:42 +
David Jones wrote:
> I agree with you and Reindl on this point too. I guess what I meant
> to say is usually the hardest spam to block with a null sender is
> backscatter from a normally trusted/good reputation mail server.
Yes, that can be very annoying. Luc
>
>From: Dianne Skoll
>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> I agree with Reindl. Y
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
David Jones wrote:
> I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot
> of legit emails.
Well, if you run your own mail server, you can do whatever you like so
long as you accept the consequences.
I would say: A null sender is not necessar
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
David Jones wrote:
>
> >From: Reindl Harald
> >do what you want - a empty envelope from is not a sign of spam
>
> I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot
> of legit emails.
You're agreeing
>From: Reindl Harald
>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:12 AM
>To: Philip Prindeville
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom
>Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> Stating f
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that because
you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies usng it to prevent mail-loops and the
subje
On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:35 AM, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:43:18 -0600
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I?m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22).
>>
>> MdF generates the header ?Return-Path: ? for me, so that
>> should be available to me in the rules.
>>
>> To test this, I w
On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> I’m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22).
>>
>> MdF generates the header “Return-Path: ” for me, so that should
>> be available to me in the rules.
>>
>> To test this, I wrote a
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:43:18 -0600
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I?m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22).
>
> MdF generates the header ?Return-Path: ? for me, so that
> should be available to me in the rules.
>
> To test this, I wrote a couple of rules:
>
> header __L_EMPTY_SENDER
Am 22.09.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
I’m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22).
MdF generates the header “Return-Path: ” for me, so that should be
available to me in the rules.
To test this, I wrote a couple of rules:
header __L_EMPTY_SENDER EnvelopeFrom:addr !~ /./
h
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 15:15 +0200, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y
Simon, it seems you have a false understanding of Bayes and how it
works. Quoting parts of the mail body from that paste:
> You should send t
On 2013-07-24 15:59, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
>> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [1] [3]
>
> It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
> obfuscated words
On 24.07.13 13:00, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure
and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any
of you have any ideas?
_# sa-learn --f
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [3]
It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
obfuscated words it's not very spammy.
What you originally said was:
On 2013-07-24 14:41, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200
> JK4 wrote:
>
>> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text and the
> obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email.
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:40:
#shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
or change it to on, not adding ham score here
I ran my message through spamc []see pastebin below), but this still
won't explain why this hits bayes 00 :(
the error is to not add -100 on shortcircuit, it is just save circles
not h
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200
JK4 wrote:
>
>
> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> > This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text
> > and the obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email.
> >
> > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [2]
> >
> > If it was
On 2013-07-24 14:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
>
>> Little email and result of spamc can be found here
>> http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1] [1]
>
> -100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
> shortcircuited rule
> [score: 0.0008]
> -1.9 BA
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:04:
This is a GTUBE test email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired.
I just don't know why this started hitting bayes zero all of a
sudden.
This shortcircuits because the server is configured to do so, and I
could turn this off.
what is learned so ?
Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
Little email and result of spamc can be found here
http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1]
-100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
shortcircuited rule
[score: 0.0008]
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Baye
On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> Hi, Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
>> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure and
>> this changed nothing (*see below). I
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good
> measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little
> flummoxed. Do any
Michael,
> > I can prepare a minimalistic workaround patch, the basic idea is
> > to just treat a row count 3 the same as count value 2.
>
> i put the official patch in place at 1:46pm edt.
>
> so, I think I am good to go, and will be sending this to freebsd ports
> maintainers.
Too late, but n
On 6/24/11 2:37 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Yes, I believe the Bug 6624:
BayesStore/MySQL.pm fails to update tokens due to MySQL server bug
(wrong count of rows affected)
is fairly critical for people running Bayes with more recent versions
of MySQL (not PostgreSQL). Unfortunately it was jus
Michael Scheidell wrote on 06/24/2011
07:21:09 AM:
> From: Michael Scheidell
> To: SpamAssassin Users List ,
>
> Date: 06/24/2011 07:21 AM
> Subject: Test port for SpamAssassin for Freebsd
>
> I am the official port maintainer for the Freebsd port for SpamAssassin.
> I have uploaded a test p
Michael,
> >> I have uploaded a test port for anyone who wants to try it.
> >> > http://www.secnap.com/downloads/sa332_unofficial.tgz
Great, thanks!
> anyone think of any other critical patches (as long as they are not
> documentation, or os specific), let me know.
Yes, I believe the Bug 6624:
On 6/24/11 2:03 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
I have uploaded a test port for anyone who wants to try it.
> http://www.secnap.com/downloads/sa332_unofficial.tgz
Installed v3.3.2 on FBSD v8.2 AMD64 using Perl v8.12.3 and I haven't
had any issues for the past couple hours. I can't see any errors in
t
Friday, June 24, 2011, 7:21:09 AM, you wrote:
> I am the official port maintainer for the Freebsd port for SpamAssassin.
> I have uploaded a test port for anyone who wants to try it.
> http://www.secnap.com/downloads/sa332_unofficial.tgz
> to install and compile:
> cd /(your ports dir: /usr/ports
On 17.01.09 11:27, RobertH wrote:
> why not consider a phish a type of malware, it is bad code and you will
> realistically get bad code on your workstation if you go there and start
> clicking OK etc
I do, but some others do not, so they scan two times...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantom
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:58:48AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and
> > replace
> > [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
>
> If you mean header_checks, you can't. header_checks operate on headers
> ONE at a time. you can't tell
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit :
> Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and replace
> [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
>
If you mean header_checks, you can't. header_checks operate on headers
ONE at a time. you can't tell it to rewrite the subject based
>
> I find it very silly to try anything but rejecting of the virus.
>
> (unless as was stated before it's a phish, which is not a virus)
> --
> Matus UHLAR
we would agree, yet we take it a lil farther.
we smtp reject spam and virus and other signatures etc.
if a client had sincerely diffe
On 17.01.09 12:19, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and
> replace [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
I find it very silly to try anything but rejecting of the virus.
(unless as was stated before it's a phish, which is no
Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and replace
[SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
Thanks
LD
On Friday 16 January 2009 00:38:07 Evan Platt wrote:
> At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
> >Thanks, it works
> >
> >How ever I have a question. In my configurati
> > - that sbl-xbl is obsolete and soon may stop working (zen.spamhaus.org
> > now does the job)
On 16.01.09 00:59, Bazooka Joe wrote:
> that will be a shame because some of us don't want Policy Block List
What about querying zen and using only results for SBL/XBL ?
Note that "obsolete" means sp
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:38:07PM -0800, Evan Platt wrote:
> At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>> Thanks, it works
>>
>> How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
>> "[SPAM]"
>>
>> How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
>
> I c
>
> You should learn
> - how to properly reply an e-mail (first remove useles crap)
ahh wow!
>
> - that sbl-xbl is obsolete and soon may stop working (zen.spamhaus.org now
> does the job)
>
that will be a shame because some of us don't want Policy Block List
> The rest is up to you. I was just
At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, it works
How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
"[SPAM]"
How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe SpamAssassin can do that.
You'll need to d
Thanks, it works
How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
"[SPAM]"
How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
TIA
On Saturday 03 January 2009 03:53:12 Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
> >On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Dani
On Jan 7, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, January 6, 2009 03:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Check your .pre files to make sure the shortcircuit plugin is loaded
in one of them. (Note: loadplugin statements added to local.cf will
NOT work, they should be in the .pre files)
is this
On Tue, January 6, 2009 03:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Check your .pre files to make sure the shortcircuit plugin is loaded
> in one of them. (Note: loadplugin statements added to local.cf will
> NOT work, they should be in the .pre files)
is this so in 3.3 svn ?
in 3.2.5 it works olso from local.
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> I did try your example, i'm getting:
>
>
> Jan 5 08:40:16 soekris spamd[24765]: config: failed to parse line,
> skipping, in "/etc/mail/spamassassin/clamav.cf": shortcircuit CLAMAV spam
>
>
>
> I'm missing something?
Sounds like you don't have the shortcircuit plug
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:50:59 -0600:
> I'm missing something?
did you enable shortcircuiting?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
I did try your example, i'm getting:
Jan 5 08:40:16 soekris spamd[24765]: config: failed to parse line, skipping,
in "/etc/mail/spamassassin/clamav.cf": shortcircuit CLAMAV spam
I'm missing something?
LD
On Saturday 03 January 2009 03:53:12 Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
> >On Fri
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > I also agree clamav is more lightweight than SA. I run clamav-milter, (runs
> > before spamass-milter). Since I don't want/need viruses nor phishes, I am
> > happy to drop them.
On 03.01.09 17:37, Bazooka Joe wrote:
> I do it the exact o
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
>> >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>
>> RobertH wrote:
>> > why do the opposite of the logical?
>
> On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kett
On 03.01.09 19:23, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working.
> However, Im testing solution you givme.
If you have some solution that uses clamscan (not clamdscan), especially
with versions of clamav older than 0.91, it costs much of t
Thankx
I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working.
However, Im testing solution you givme.
Thankx
On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:10:25 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> > >> clamav *LAST* and
> >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
> RobertH wrote:
> > why do the opposite of the logical?
On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enoug
RobertH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
>> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>>
>>
>>
>
> why do the opposite of the logical?
>
>
Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enough to be wo
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
You mean
as a milter for example?
A clamav-only milter, yes, assuming your SA milter can be told to file or
discard the message and thus bypass AV scanning.
On Friday 02 January 2009 19:30:05 John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis
> >
> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>
>
why do the opposite of the logical?
- rh
Many thanks
You give me an idea on how to configure
Regards,
LD
On Saturday 03 January 2009 08:48:39 Justin Mason wrote:
> Matt Kettler writes:
> >Justin Mason wrote:
> >> John Hardin writes:
> >>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> it is for short-circuit. Because like
Matt Kettler writes:
>Justin Mason wrote:
>> John Hardin writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>>>
>>>
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>>>
Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
>>> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>>> send to back virii test.
>>>
Justin Mason wrote on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:53:12 +:
> It's perfectly fine to run ClamAV as a plugin and shortcircuit;
Justin, he wants to short-circuit before clamav, not because of it.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 18:58 -0600, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> [...] and because virii test needs more power, Id like to send to back
> virii test.
Wrong. ClamAV takes less time and CPU per message than SA.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
John Hardin writes:
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>
>> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
>> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>> send to back virii test.
>
>You might have more success incorporating
You mean
as a milter for example?
On Friday 02 January 2009 19:30:05 John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> > it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
> > a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
> >
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> You are right
>
>
> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
> send to back virii test.
Fair enough. Just be careful with shortcircuit if you're doing it based
on
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
send to back virii test.
You might have more success incorporating clamav through some other way
You are right
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than a Mail
with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to send to back
virii test.
What is the line to change priority?
TIA
LD
On Friday 02 January 2009 17:06:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> Luis Dani
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> Hi Spams,
>
>
> Afer finally do clamav scanning with sa-plugin I wonder to know when
> this test is done. I mean, if is it the first or last?
By default, the .cf file in
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin has no priority
declared, so it's going to ru
Larry Nedry writes:
> I've been using Justin Mason's auto-generated rule set since mid October
> and am fairly happy with it. Up until Jan 11, false positives averaged
> about 10% of the hits and I can live with that.
>
> I noticed a surprising change on Jan 11, 2008. Before that day many of th
I've been using Justin Mason's auto-generated rule set since mid October
and am fairly happy with it. Up until Jan 11, false positives averaged
about 10% of the hits and I can live with that.
I noticed a surprising change on Jan 11, 2008. Before that day many of the
hits were on low scoring (< 2
Larry Nedry writes:
> On 8/13/07 at 4:01 PM +0100 Justin Mason wrote:
> >I've been working on a new way to auto-generate body rules recently...
>
> Are these rules restricted to Spamassassin 3.2 or newer?
>
> The following is what I get when I dig 8.1.3.sought.rules.yerp.org. Notice
> the NXDOM
On 8/13/07 at 4:01 PM +0100 Justin Mason wrote:
>I've been working on a new way to auto-generate body rules recently...
Are these rules restricted to Spamassassin 3.2 or newer?
The following is what I get when I dig 8.1.3.sought.rules.yerp.org. Notice
the NXDOMAIN.
Thanks for the great work!
N
Martin Hochreiter wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea schrieb:
---
trusted_networks 80.123.XXX.XXX
trusted_networks 80.122.XXX.XXX
internal_networks 192.168.1.0/24
internal_networks 192.168.2.0/24
internal_networks 127.0.0.1
---
I am using the SuSE rpm spa
Daryl C. W. O'Shea schrieb:
>
> ---
> trusted_networks 80.123.XXX.XXX
> trusted_networks 80.122.XXX.XXX
> internal_networks 192.168.1.0/24
> internal_networks 192.168.2.0/24
> internal_networks 127.0.0.1
> ---
I am usi
Matt Kettler wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I get now hints from the logfiles concerning a timeout,
my trusted/internal networks in local.cf are set as follwing
---
trusted_networks 80.123.XXX.XXX
trusted_networks 80.122.XXX.XXX
internal_networks
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>>> I get now hints from the logfiles concerning a timeout,
>>> my trusted/internal networks in local.cf are set as follwing
>>> ---
>>> trusted_networks 80.123.XXX.XXX
>>> trusted_networks 80.122.XXX.XXX
>>> internal_netw
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>>>
>> I get now hints from the logfiles concerning a timeout,
>> my trusted/internal networks in local.cf are set as follwing
>> ---
>> trusted_networks 80.123.XXX.XXX
>> trusted_networks 80.122.XXX.XXX
>> internal_networks 192.168.1.0/24
>> intern
Martin Hochreiter wrote:
Some messages here get tests=none. The two conditions I've found here
are 1) like Matt already mentioned, a timeout in communication using
spamc, or 2) the message was received totally within our network
(trusted/internal).
Perhaps maybe you don't have the trusted/intern
>
> Some messages here get tests=none. The two conditions I've found here
> are 1) like Matt already mentioned, a timeout in communication using
> spamc, or 2) the message was received totally within our network
> (trusted/internal).
>
> Perhaps maybe you don't have the trusted/internal networks s
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mark Martinec wrote:
No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=1.7 tests=[none]
What does "tests=[none]" mean?
Matt Kettler wrote:
That's generated by amavis, not spamassassin.
My guess, based on my limited knowledge of amavis, is that message means
one of the following:
Ama
> Actually the "[none]" comes directly from SpamAssassin, amavisd just
> reports what it gets after calling SA.
>
> The relevant code is in SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm, sub _get_tag:
>
> TESTSSCORES => sub {
> my $arg = (shift || ",");
> my $line = '';
> foreach my $test (so
> > No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=1.7 tests=[none]
> > What does "tests=[none]" mean?
Matt Kettler wrote:
> That's generated by amavis, not spamassassin.
> My guess, based on my limited knowledge of amavis, is that message means
> one of the following:
> Amavis did run the message through
Martin Hochreiter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am using spamassassin with amavis.
>
> I sometimes get mails (Spam Mails) - not tagged with ***SPAM***
> but tagged with the following header:
>
> No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=1.7 tests=[none]
>
> What does "tests=[none]" mean?
>
That's generated b
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Aquino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:05 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Test?
>
>
> Is this how I send to the list ?
Yes, and its better then the old way of posting. Which required bringing a
shrubbery an
Daniel Aquino schrieb:
Is this how I send to the list ?
Congratulations you have made it ;-).
--
Grüsse/Greetings
MH
Dont send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Michael Scheidell
Cc: John van Oppen; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: test of HELO addresses
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Rudd wrote:
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: John van Oppen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> Is there a test that already does this?
>>
>> SPF
>
> I sure hope the SPF module is NOT using the HELO string for
> che
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 10:48 AM
> To: Michael Scheidell
> Cc: John van Oppen; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: test of HELO addresses
>
>
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John van Oppen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a test that already does this?
SPF
I sure hope the SPF module is NOT using the HELO string for checking.
That would be incredibly broken.
> -Original Message-
> From: John van Oppen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 5:54 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: test of HELO addresses
>
>
> Received: from cpe-76-190-23-240.woh.res.rr.com (HELO earthlink.net)
> (76.190.23.240)
> by 0
Yes, it's called HELO tests.
This example you give should be tagged with FORGED_RCVD_HELO
And SA does loads more HELO tests by default, if it's not working
there's probably something wrong with your DNS setup (missing Net::DNS
or something like that).
Go the the /usr/share/spamassassin/ dir and
Title: Test: anyone else getting a deltahealthgroup bounce?
yes, and administrators should unsub someone who is doing
stuff like this.
From: Chris Santerre
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September
05, 2006 12:05 PMTo: SaTalk (E-mail)Cc:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Loren Wilton wrote:
http://alaska.aif1.com/pr.asp?src=3D1155591075";
width=3D"1" height=3D"1" border=3D"0"/>
http://images.ed4.net/images/htdocs/alaska/
head_left.gif" width=3D"436" height=3D"78">
http://alaska.aif1.com/pr.asp?src=3D1155591075";>src=3D"http://images
On Sunday 27 August 2006 23:52, Loren Wilton wrote:
> >> The other one is totally unrelated, say a marketing company has set up
> >> a redirector to count how often each link is visited.
> >>
> >> Well, for the other one . I would not want to read these mails even
> >> if they are not phish
>
On 8/28/2006 3:52 AM, Loren Wilton wrote:
Well lets see. My latest Alaska Airlines milage statement says:
These things normally score about 25 points. I have them whitelisted.
What's the stock SA rule component of that? 25 points for ham isn't good!
Daryl
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
