On Sat, January 10, 2009 09:15, mouss wrote:
> Not necessarily. you can extend trust if this brings you more
> benefits than problems.
msa_networks depends on trusted_networks, does it make sense ?
maybe, maybe not but i keep my trusted at very few, olso so dns
whitelist will be quered to give m
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
>
>> # spf/dkim/dk
>> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
>
> this one does not exists
>
> whitelist_auth
> def_whitelist_auth
> unwhitelist_auth
>
> does
>
thanks for the correction. next time, I'll cut-n-paste inste
On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
> # spf/dkim/dk
> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
this one does not exists
whitelist_auth
def_whitelist_auth
unwhitelist_auth
does
see perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf and corsponding plugin docs
> you should also make sure your trusted_n
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, mouss wrote:
Anyway, I just tried (with a tagged address) and my SA didn't say
anything about the message. so what's the problem?
The problem is not in SA. Apparently he's using a defunct DNSBL that's
overriding the SA score. SA scored the message negative 40-mumble, which
Please use a mailer that obeys the "Reply-To:" header. mo...@ml.* is
reserved for mailing list mail (i.e. mail coming from list servers).
ndwor...@ix.netcom.com a écrit :
> It's not spam, it's a reply to a mailing list sign up form. The
> customer signs up and then receives a free drink at our
Please do not top-post.
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:48 -0800, fbpc wrote:
> Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
> don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
> triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, whi
Evan Platt wrote on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:01:50 -0800:
> If there's a few pages of quoted text, it shows ...snip and for
> some reason, removes odd things, like in this case, the Nabble tag. Any ideas?
It's a signature. I have configured my reader to grey them out, so they don't
distract, but
At 09:48 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
The footer at the bottom of the original message is a hint as to why
your advice won't be understood. :-)
Regards,
-sm
AARGH!
Ok, unless someone here knows, I'll ask in an Eudora group... I
turned Header mode to Terse. Only shows the From, To, and subject
At 18:40 08-01-2009, Evan Platt wrote:
For the THIRD time, SpamAssassin is not marking the mail as Spam.
Mailscanner is. You need to ask on a mailscanner list.
The footer at the bottom of the original message is a hint as to why
your advice won't be understood. :-)
Regards,
-sm
For the THIRD time, SpamAssassin is not marking the mail as Spam.
Mailscanner is. You need to ask on a mailscanner list.
At 06:15 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not sure why
that's relevant.
I have followed the instructions on the SpamAss
On Fri, January 9, 2009 03:15, fbpc wrote:
> Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not
> sure why that's relevant.
if you dont know that then remove them
> I have followed the instructions on the SpamAssasin website, but
> although the headers show that the whitelist is r
Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not sure why
that's relevant.
I have followed the instructions on the SpamAssasin website, but although
the headers show that the whitelist is recognized, the program is still
changing the subjects of my emails.
I supose I could go
On Fri, January 9, 2009 02:48, fbpc wrote:
> I came to this forum just to get some help: how do I whitelist
> myself effectively.
i can olso ask why whitelist at all is needed ?
but here:
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=fbpc.com&submit=Go!
v=spf1 a mx ip4:64.202.0.1/16 ip4:69.94.64
At 05:48 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, which
is a neighborhood bar/nightclub in Gree
Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, which
is a neighborhood bar/nightclub in Greenwich Village. The name has existe
On Thu, January 8, 2009 21:59, Evan Platt wrote:
> 1. Why are you checking outgoing mail?
if he did not, maybe the sender ip will be blacklisted, much better
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 21:59 +0100, mouss wrote:
> fbpc a écrit :
> > I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> > *...@fbpc.com
>
> don't do that. now spammers know how to evade your filters.
> use reject_from_rcvd or reject_from_auth instead.
>
> but wait. this looks
On Thu, January 8, 2009 21:54, fbpc wrote:
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
newer use that whitelist_from anywhere !
even mailscanner can be fooled
> X-FBPC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not
> cached,
> score=-47.
fbpc wrote:
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
>
The above file is a MailScanner config file not a SpamAssassin config
file, it should NOT contain statements of that format. MailScanner's
whitelisting options are formatted differently (I don't
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, fbpc wrote:
...
X-FBPC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached,
...
In light of all the other comments already given, I couldn't help to
notice the 'ORDB-RBL' in the MailScanner header. I'm assuming that is the
ordb.org RBL that's been dead for qui
At 12:54 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
*...@fbpc.com
But outgoing emails are still getting stopped as spam. The whitelist seems
to be recognized in the headers, but the subject line still gets tagged with
a {SPAM} and the mail gets
fbpc a écrit :
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
>
don't do that. now spammers know how to evade your filters.
use reject_from_rcvd or reject_from_auth instead.
but wait. this looks like spam to me. if it is, why are you sending it?
> But ou
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for your reply, and apologies for my delay in replying again.
>
> If these emails are never going to match the whitelist, is there a way I can
> always allow emails from certain addresses in a fool-proof way?
>
> The addresses I need to allow though ar
You can use whitelist_from. This will only match on the From address, so is
quite spoofable.
Loren
Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 August 2005 18:18
> To: Richard Hobbs
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Whitelist not working...
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Hobbs wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Her
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are the headers of one of the emails from a receipient in the
> whitelist. I have replaced sensitive information with and @ symbols
> with [at] in case this gets archived anywhere.
>
> It all looks normal to me... Any ideas?
Well it looks normal, b
: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 August 2005 19:22
> To: Richard Hobbs
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Whitelist not working...
>
> Richard Hobbs wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In an attempt to always allow emails from particular
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In an attempt to always allow emails from particular domains, I have added
> the following lines into "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf":
>
> def_whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] inmac.co.uk
> def_whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inmac.co.uk
> d
Elsa Andrés wrote:
Wow... I'm impressed!
I added "-x" option to spamd start script as you mentioned (to prevent "user
prefs" to become active) and, sure it works!
Thank you very much for you tip. I was being crazy to find the error, and
looked and re-looked the local.cf and anything seemed O.K. I t
>Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Suggestion: do ONE whitelist per whitelist_from statement, not two.
>> whitelist_from should only accept one parameter.
>>
>> whitelist_from_rcvd expects two parameters, but the second parameter
>> is not a From: address, so perhaps looking at those got you
>> confused..
>
>
>You're probably getting hit by bug 3855 ('whitelist_from in local.cf
>ignored after whitelist_from loaded from users prefs').
>
>Either disable the user_prefs (if you are not using them) by giving
>spamd the '-x' option, or upgrade to 3.0.1, where it's fixed.
Hi Marco,
Wow... I'm impressed!
I
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Suggestion: do ONE whitelist per whitelist_from statement, not two.
> whitelist_from should only accept one parameter.
>
> whitelist_from_rcvd expects two parameters, but the second parameter
> is not a From: address, so perhaps looking at those got you
> confused..
Barring
At 11:54 AM 10/25/2004 +0200, Elsa Andrés wrote:
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But e-mails coming from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or
Elsa Andrés wrote:
Any idea on how to get around this issue will be appreciated.
You're probably getting hit by bug 3855 ('whitelist_from in local.cf
ignored after whitelist_from loaded from users prefs').
Either disable the user_prefs (if you are not using them) by giving
spamd the '-x' option,
34 matches
Mail list logo
