micah anderson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've got some machines that are running logcheck, they periodically send
> mail to us with reports. Sometimes those mails have some spammy stuff in
> them, because they are mail server logs, or web logs with some spammy
> stuff in them.
>
> I don't want spamass
Am 24.10.2014 um 21:18 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 24.10.2014 um 17:59 schrieb micah anderson:
I've got some machines that are running logcheck, they periodically
send
mail to us with reports. Sometimes those mails have some spammy
stuff in
them, becau
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 24.10.2014 um 17:59 schrieb micah anderson:
I've got some machines that are running logcheck, they periodically send
mail to us with reports. Sometimes those mails have some spammy stuff in
them, because they are mail server logs, or web logs with
On 10/24/2014 05:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
Hi,
I've got some machines that are running logcheck, they periodically send
mail to us with reports. Sometimes those mails have some spammy stuff in
them, because they are mail server logs, or web logs with some spammy
stuff in them.
I don't want
Am 24.10.2014 um 17:59 schrieb micah anderson:
I've got some machines that are running logcheck, they periodically send
mail to us with reports. Sometimes those mails have some spammy stuff in
them, because they are mail server logs, or web logs with some spammy
stuff in them.
I don't want spam
On 8/16/2013 9:43 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If your mail is being routed via your ISP's MTAs you probably need to
add them to trusted_networks too.
internal_networks it is.
On 16.08.13 10:45, Gregg Stock wrote:
I have an MX record that points to our staic IP. So I don't have an
external MTA.
I have an MX record that points to our staic IP. So I don't have an
external MTA.
I had a problem with postfix when I added the network that port forwards
to mynetworks, I had an open relay for a couple of hours :(
On 8/16/2013 9:43 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:27 -07
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:27 -0700, Gregg Stock wrote:
> I'm getting some ALL_TRUSTED on spam and wasn't sure what to list in as
> trusted networks. My mail server has incoming messages port forwarded by
> iptables. So everything looks like it comes from an internal network.
> Right now, I have our
Den 2012-03-09 09:11, Jari Fredriksson skrev:
No, SA will scan messages even if they originate from
trusted_networks,
and X-Spam headers will be added.
most sites bypass scanning of there own mails since its just ham
(permit_mynetworks) in postfix, my point is why not learn ham in bayes ?
Den 2012-03-09 08:50, Peter Tselios skrev:
I noticed that for users originating from my networks, the X-Spam
headers are not added to the messages.
how do you use spamassassin ?, i still not get that ball to see all
here
9.3.2012 9:50, Peter Tselios kirjoitti:
> Good morning,
> I noticed that for users originating from my networks, the X-Spam
> headers are not added to the messages. Is that due to the
> "trusted_networks" settings? If so, does that mean that spamassassin
> does not check them?
> P.
No, SA will sca
On 2/27/2007 12:45 PM, Ben Wylie wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Assuming you've got your trusted_networks (and possibly
internal_networks) setup, you just need to add
"always_trust_envelope_sender 1" to your local.cf.
Thanks for the help.
It now gives me the error
[3952] dbg: spf: cannot
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Assuming you've got your trusted_networks (and possibly
internal_networks) setup, you just need to add
"always_trust_envelope_sender 1" to your local.cf.
Thanks for the help.
It now gives me the error
[3952] dbg: spf: cannot get Envelope-From, cannot use SPF
[3952] db
Ben Wylie wrote:
but then refuses to do any more, as it claims not to be able to trust
the X-Envelope-From header because it has been through my AV gateway:
[2408] dbg: spf: relayed through one or more trusted relays, cannot use
header-based Envelope-From, skipping
Similarly:
[2408] dbg: spf
On Mon, February 26, 2007 17:01, Ben Wylie wrote:
[snip]
> Is there any way that I can tell SpamAssassin to trust the
> X-Envelope-From or Return-Path information in the headers as it is
> merely an AV gateway and not going to change the X-Envelope-From headers?
> This way I could get SPF checks
Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:52 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Ross Boylan wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA
applies DUL RBLs and other s
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:52 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA
> >> applies DUL RBLs and other such tests against hosts delivering mail to
> >
Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>> No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA
>> applies DUL RBLs and other such tests against hosts delivering mail to
>> internal hosts.
>>
> I thought internal_hosts never get mail f
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA
> applies DUL RBLs and other such tests against hosts delivering mail to
> internal hosts.
I thought internal_hosts never get mail from DUL RBLs. So why would SA
check if
> Ok, well that is resolvable. What is actually meant
> to be included as "internal" and what is the difference
> between that and trusted networks? If something is
> trusted then it can be treated as internal, or can't it?
The "simple" rule is internal_networks are really YOUR internal networks
t
Ben Wylie wrote:
>>> As i understand it, in trusted networks you want
>>> to have any ip or ip range that you trust to be
>>> reporting correctly the details of the server from
>>> which it received the email.
>>>
>> Yes, however there's another stipulation.. By default,
>> if undeclared
>> As i understand it, in trusted networks you want
>> to have any ip or ip range that you trust to be
>> reporting correctly the details of the server from
>> which it received the email.
>
> Yes, however there's another stipulation.. By default,
> if undeclared, internal_networks will copy the va
Ben Wylie wrote:
> As i understand it, in trusted networks you want to have any ip or ip range
> that you trust to be reporting correctly the details of the server from which
> it received the email.
>
> If this is the case, presumably it is good to have the main service provider
> servers in th
Jim Knuth wrote:
> Gestern (24.03.2006/22:43 Uhr) schrieb Matt Kettler,
>
>> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> Craig McLean wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[snip]
> You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
>
> I don`t know yet how I must determine the trusted network. :(
Gestern (24.03.2006/22:43 Uhr) schrieb Matt Kettler,
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Craig McLean wrote:
>>> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
I don`t know yet how I must determine the trusted network. :(
192.168.1/24 127/8 is clear for
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Craig McLean wrote:
>> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
>>>
>>> trusted_networks 192.168.128.4
>>> trusted_networks 69.27.243.222
>> (I'm not the OP...)
>>
>> Do those addresses need to be CIDR? Or will SA take
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> When automatically set, yes. When you manually define your
> trusted/internal networks, no -- you really get to define them.
OK, that makes sense.
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Softw
Craig McLean wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
> >
> > trusted_networks 192.168.128.4
> > trusted_networks 69.27.243.222
>
> (I'm not the OP...)
>
> Do those addresses need to be CIDR? Or will SA take straight-out IP?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You might as well through in trusted_networks 127.0.0.1
... that's not hardcoded?
When automatically set, yes. When you manually define your
trusted/internal networks, no -- you really get to define them.
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> You might as well through in trusted_networks 127.0.0.1
... that's not hardcoded?
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Jim Maul wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
My question is, with this setup, what trusted_networks should i have
defined?
You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
trusted_networks 192.168.128.4
trusted_networks 69.27.243.222
I see that 167.206.112.76 (mx1.lightpath.net) also ac
Bowie Bailey wrote:
My question is, with this setup, what trusted_networks should i have
defined?
You should define all of the IP addresses of your mailserver.
trusted_networks 192.168.128.4
trusted_networks 69.27.243.222
I see that 167.206.112.76 (mx1.lightpath.net) also accepts mail for yo
Jim Maul wrote:
> I believe i am having an issue with my trusted networks and am hoping
> someone can help me figure out what to do. I currently do not have
> any defined and am running a nat'ed server which from what i read will
> pretty much always have problems with trusted networks. The thing
Liam-PrintingAutomation wrote:
> Also, when using IP's, can you use a full IP, or do you have to leave
> the last octet off (after the period) like in the example?
Yes, you can do a full IP.. In fact, in some old versions, leaving the end off
doesn't work right, so I'd recommend always specifying
Liam-PrintingAutomation wrote:
> These are some stupid questions, but I can't find answers for them doing
> a Google search. I can't seem to find any example local.cf's that have
> more than one trusted networks.
What about man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf under "trusted_networks"
Examples:
trusted_n
35 matches
Mail list logo
