On 20 Nov 2024, Andy Smith uttered the following:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:07:09PM +, Nix wrote:
>> > From
>> > https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
>> > :
>>
>> Tried registering here. I can register a v4 address, but every fo
Nick Howitt writes:
>> ... the account is free and then they hit you with an EULA that says
>>
>>> The Services are available at the then-current rate. Customer shall
>>> pay all applicable fees when due as invoiced and, if fees are being
>>> paid via credit card or other electronic means, Custo
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:07:09PM +, Nix wrote:
> > From
> > https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
> > :
>
> Tried registering here. I can register a v4 address, but every format of
> v6 CIDR I've tried reports "Invalid V6_CIDR" with (
Nix wrote:
On 19 Nov 2024, Matija Nalis stated:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 05:21:12PM +, Nix wrote:
I'm not a high-volume site, a few thousand mails a day. If I'm blocked,
probably more or less everyone is being blocked. (Are the DNSBLs above
Yes, pretty much every non-paying customer is bl
On 19 Nov 2024, Matija Nalis stated:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 05:21:12PM +, Nix wrote:
>> I'm not a high-volume site, a few thousand mails a day. If I'm blocked,
>> probably more or less everyone is being blocked. (Are the DNSBLs above
>
> Yes, pretty much every non-paying customer is blocked
On 20/11/2024 17:07, Nix wrote:
On 19 Nov 2024, Matija Nalis stated:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 05:21:12PM +, Nix wrote:
I'm not a high-volume site, a few thousand mails a day. If I'm blocked,
probably more or less everyone is being blocked. (Are the DNSBLs above
Yes, pretty much every n
On 20/11/2024 16:39, Nix wrote:
On 20 Nov 2024, Nick Howitt uttered the following:
On 20/11/2024 12:55, Nix wrote:
On 19 Nov 2024, Greg Troxel told this:
Matija Nalis writes:
From
https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
:
Star
On 20 Nov 2024, Nick Howitt uttered the following:
>
>
> On 20/11/2024 12:55, Nix wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2024, Greg Troxel told this:
>>
>>> Matija Nalis writes:
>>>
From
https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
:
> Starti
On 19 Nov 2024, Greg Troxel told this:
> Matija Nalis writes:
>
>> From
>> https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
>> :
>>
>>> Starting March 1, 2024, Validity will allow up to 10,000 requests to
>>> anonymous users over a 30-day period.
>>
>>
On 20/11/2024 12:55, Nix wrote:
On 19 Nov 2024, Greg Troxel told this:
Matija Nalis writes:
From
https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS
:
Starting March 1, 2024, Validity will allow up to 10,000 requests to
anonymous users over a 3
On 19 Nov 2024, Matus UHLAR stated:
>>On 18 Nov 2024, Bill Cole spake thusly:
>>> If you forward DNS queries instead of running your own *fully
>>> recursive* DNS resolver locally, you *look* like you are part of a
>>> high-volume leech. This almost certainly does not mean you should run
>>> dnsma
> 10k requests per 30-day period is about 333 queries/day. Or less than 14
> queries per hour.
> Not very much at all (and certainly at least order of magnitude less than
> your stated traffic).
> No amount of local DNS caching is going to fix limits *that low*.
Just a reminder that there is n
feature, having default rules that are
>> blocked for many reasonable personal use systems is less problematic.
>>
> So what happens to the limit when you register with them?
A good question, but I have never perceived it being ok to have to
register for default ruleset RBLs. (What
messages processed by SA. I
didn't However a bunch of them hit shortcircuit rules (e.g. DKIM
welcomelist) and thus I suspect some of those don't query RBLs (but logs
show some do). So perhaps I am just squeaking by. And yes, I am
running my own resolver.
This is a personal server. W
me shows just over 10K messages processed by SA. I
didn't However a bunch of them hit shortcircuit rules (e.g. DKIM
welcomelist) and thus I suspect some of those don't query RBLs (but logs
show some do). So perhaps I am just squeaking by. And yes, I am
running my own resolver.
T
On 19/11/2024 10:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
The point of the big ugly error message is to have a big ugly error
message. MOST people who report problems with SA accuracy here have
misconfigured their resolvers, apparently because they don't trust
documentation or don't read it.
Not
On 18 Nov 2024, Bill Cole spake thusly:
If you forward DNS queries instead of running your own *fully
recursive* DNS resolver locally, you *look* like you are part of a
high-volume leech. This almost certainly does not mean you should run
dnsmasq locally, it means you need a REAL resolver. Unboun
n in that message?
>
> Nov 14 00:00:03 loom warning: check: dns_block_rule
> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED hit, creating
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/helpers/.spamassassin/dnsblock_bl.score.senderscore.com
> (This means DNSBL blocked you due to too many queries. Set all affected
> rules s
t on earth is going on in that message?
>>
>> Nov 14 00:00:03 loom warning: check: dns_block_rule
>> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED hit, creating
>> /etc/mail/spamassassin/helpers/.spamassassin/dnsblock_bl.score.senderscore.com
>> (This means DNSBL blocked you due to too many queries. S
On 18 Nov 2024, Nick Howitt stated:
> The RBL's check the referring DNS Server. if you use someone like OpenDNS or
> GoogleDNS, as many others do then, as far as the RBL
> list is concernet it is receiving too many queries via those DNS servers.
>
> If you want to use these RBL's, it is recommend
_block_rule
> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED hit, creating
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/helpers/.spamassassin/dnsblock_bl.score.senderscore.com
> (This means DNSBL blocked you due to too many queries. Set all affected
> rules score to 0, or use "dns_query_restriction deny
> bl.score.sendersco
elpers/.spamassassin/dnsblock_bl.score.senderscore.com
(This means DNSBL blocked you due to too many queries. Set all affected rules score to 0,
or use "dns_query_restriction deny bl.score.senderscore.com" to disable queries)
Nov 14 00:00:03 loom warning: check: dns_block_rule RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BL
ed you due to too many queries. Set all affected rules
score to 0, or use "dns_query_restriction deny bl.score.senderscore.com" to
disable queries)
Nov 14 00:00:03 loom warning: check: dns_block_rule
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED hit, creating
/etc/mail/spamassassin/helpers/.spamassassin
r. I disabled all of them. Strange. - Mark
Do you have trustpath configured properly?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPAMASSASSIN/TrustPath
- if you use backup MX server which is listed here, it may cause this
problem.
do you update your rules?
those three rules use different d
On 14.11.24 15:31, Matija Nalis wrote:
I'm not using VALIDITY for SA, but I do periodic checks with Icinga
check_rbl if my mailservers did get on any blacklist, and about 2
days ago I've got alerts that ALL of mailservers were suddenly on
Validity Senderscore blacklist:
CHECK_RBL CRITICAL - x.x.
They probably tightened up their AUP / enforcement...
I'm not using VALIDITY for SA, but I do periodic checks with Icinga
check_rbl if my mailservers did get on any blacklist, and about 2
days ago I've got alerts that ALL of mailservers were suddenly on
Validity Senderscore blacklist:
CHECK_RBL C
have trustpath configured properly?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPAMASSASSIN/TrustPath
- if you use backup MX server which is listed here, it may cause this
problem.
do you update your rules?
those three rules use different dnswls:
header RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED
On 11/13/2024 10:15 PM, Mark London wrote:
FWIW, Today I discovered that RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE, were being triggered
for every email that our server received. I do not use a public DNS
server. I disabled all of them. Strange. - Mark
FWIW, Today I discovered that RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE, were being triggered
for every email that our server received. I do not use a public DNS
server. I disabled all of them. Strange. - Mark
On 2024-09-23 at 09:15:25 UTC-0400 (Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:15:25 +)
Grega via users
is rumored to have said:
Hi.
Where can one disable this?
One can disable any rule by adding a score line in local.cf for the rule
with a score of 0, e,g,:
score RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED
True.
I have added it and will report back in few days...
Regards,G
From: Reindl Harald (privat)
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2024 15:31
To: Grega; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disable validity rules
Am 23.09.24 um 15:23 schrieb Grega via
: Re: Disable validity rules
Am 23.09.24 um 15:15 schrieb Grega via users:
> Where can one disable this?
>
> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
> Validity was blocked. See
> https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for mor
Hi.
Where can one disable this?
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validit
> On Jun 3, 2024, at 4:09 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that I have "lowered" (increased to small negative number)
> scores for RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_*, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* and RCVD_IN_IADB_*
> because I has similar bad experience with them.
Matus, if you EVER have a bad exper
On 6/5/24 13:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there
are new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when
there are new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It is updated where it is actually used, on th
On 6/5/24 11:14, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
On 6/5/24 09:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules
On 6/5/24 09:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It is updated where it is actually used, on th
t; it by coincidence…
Anyway, thank you all.
On 6/3/24 14:52, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
It is updated where it is actually used, on the ASF rule maintenance
system.
On 2024-06-03 at 01:26:31 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:26:31 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
Now for my questions:
*) as is stated in active.list it should not be edited. What's the
correct place to add the new rules to activate them? local.cf?
Yes. In your local ve
On 6/3/24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
>> A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
>> turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
>> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_I
On 03.06.24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I now know that validity introduced a query limit
rules matched.
I now know that validity introduced a query limit which we hit, because
I have to admit, I wasn't aware that I shouldn't use public DNS
resolvers for blacklists and therefore we got "Excessive Number of
Queries" answers. I also found this patch
https://bz.apa
Hi,
if you are using rules that query Validity rbl (RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_* rules), make
sure you have updated rules (at least dated 2024-04-23),
otherwise you may encounter in FPs instead of hitting an overlimit response.
Giovanni
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
them) to legally protect you, and your professional
indemnity insurance (or your countries version of it) is current...
I do not work for the domain owners of the world and I am not obligated
to enforce their usage rules on their users.
Obligated no, its your network, your rules, but hono
ating the mail is not generating that desire fraudulently, I
don't care much about what the domain owner says. I do not work for the domain
owners of the world and I am not obligated to enforce their usage rules on
their users. Obviously I take their input seriously when trying to detect f
On 09/05/2024 22:47, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory th
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
spam, you can make your SpamAssassin always trust SPF failures
absolutely. I would not recommend that. Some pe
of one test
on the passing of another.
A simple logical problem:
score RULE_A 3
score RULE_B -2
meta CANCEL_B_IF_A RULE_A && RULE_B
score CANCEL_B_IF_A 2
You can also use 'priority' directives to make rules execute in a
defined order and a 'shortcircuit' direct
kurt.va1der.ca via users skrev den 2024-05-08 21:53:
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as
follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0
tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS=0.001,
HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=
On 09/05/2024 05:57, Jarland Donnell wrote:
That's easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate
their effort but it's simply not an accurate way to determine the value
of an email in 2024. It's never been the deciding factor between
whether or not an email was spam, in any email
Obviously the right way is for the master rules to be adjusted. But if you want
a local fix, try something like this:
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -0.001
metaMY_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HIRCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI && !SPF_FAIL
score MY_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI-5
describeMY_RCVD_IN_
That’s easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate their effort
but it’s simply not an accurate way to determine the value of an email in 2024.
It’s never been the deciding factor between whether or not an email was spam,
in any email I’ve audited in the last decade.
> On Wednes
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0
tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS=0.001,
HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
NORDNS_LOW_CONTRAST=0
On 2023-12-08 at 05:43:28 UTC-0500 (Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:43:28 +0100)
Mickaël Maillot
is rumored to have said:
forget what i say, it was a DNS issue unrelated to the updated rules.
An example of the Basic Axiom of System Administration:
It is *ALWAYS* DNS.
Le ven. 8 déc. 2023 à 11
forget what i say, it was a DNS issue unrelated to the updated rules.
Le ven. 8 déc. 2023 à 11:00, Mickaël Maillot a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I just want to notify you that the new rules take lots more times,
> i updated my rules from 5/12 to 8/12 and now in my maillog, i see
Hi,
I just want to notify you that the new rules take lots more times,
i updated my rules from 5/12 to 8/12 and now in my maillog, i see a lot's
of:
tests_pri_-100: 21005
tests_pri_-100: 14165
tests_pri_-100: 17684
tests_pri_-100: 23094
reverted the ruleset back to 5/12 and it's b
2023 at 11:41 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>>>Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 10:15:
>>>>I have also commited patch to bug 6918 to handle "arc.chain="
>>>>results.
>>>>Let's see how these will go.
>>On 12.03.23 14:20, Be
"arc.chain="
> >>>>results.
> >>>>Let's see how these will go.
>
> >>On 12.03.23 14:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >>>miss ARC rules imho
>
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 14:38:
> >>Or, so you mean som
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 16:41:
I set SA only to trust authentication server on my machine and I'm
watching the results.
okay, i have now added ARC (Seal/Sign) to fuglu, its not perfekt imho,
but works as designed in fuglu
with this i got iprev working with can be seen in
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 10:15:
I have also commited patch to bug 6918 to handle "arc.chain="
results.
Let's see how these will go.
On 12.03.23 14:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
miss ARC rules imho
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 14:38:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 14:38:
On 12.03.23 14:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 10:15:
I have also commited patch to bug 6918 to handle "arc.chain="
results.
Let's see how these will go.
miss ARC rules imho
there
On 12.03.23 14:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 10:15:
I have also commited patch to bug 6918 to handle "arc.chain=" results.
Let's see how these will go.
miss ARC rules imho
there are no rules in arc.chain.
Or, so you mean something els
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-03-12 10:15:
I have also commited patch to bug 6918 to handle "arc.chain=" results.
Let's see how these will go.
miss ARC rules imho
Hello,
I'm further playing with AuthRes plugin, I have modified test rules so each
AUTHRES_ rule is equivalent to corresponding rule in SA.
I set scores to only produce small positive scores, usually to even SA scores
- valid spf/dkim/dmarc/arc is NOT a ham sign!
I have also commited
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:01:02AM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> my changes does nothing to datafeed users, but it
> makes big diffrenses to free usage
Makes zero difference how the rules are called, SA never sends duplicate
physical queries, they are cached and reused.
header RCVD_IN_XBL eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal',
'zen.spamhaus.org.', '^127\.0\.0\.[4567]$')
header RCVD_IN_PBL eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal',
'zen.spamhaus.org.', '^127\.0\.0\.1[01]$')
header RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexter
Riccardo Alfieri skrev den 2022-12-28 11:44:
Hello everyone,
just FYI, I published the updated rules to have DQS working on SA
4.0.0+ (https://github.com/spamhaus/spamassassin-dqs)
https://github.com/spamhaus/spamassassin-dqs/blob/master/4.0.0%2B/sh.cf
dated Spamhaus's SpamAssassin
On 28/12/22 15:15, Henrik K wrote:
Maybe would be even good idea to use something like this:
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::HashBL
else
error: Please activate HashBL plugin in v342.pre
endif
I think I'll just add the ifplugin condition in the two .cf files and
add a note in t
And it is even mentioned in the UPGRADE notes:
- The HashBL plugin in 342.pre is now enabled by default.
(sad typo in the filename)
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> This was discussed and approved in some of the 4.0.0 bugs. There should be
> no need to revisit i
As I say, such is life. It's a minor thing. Any objections to a
comment if it doesn't exist that documents it was enabled by default in
4.0.0 in the 3.4.2 pre file?
On 12/28/2022 9:21 AM, Henrik K wrote:
This was discussed and approved in some of the 4.0.0 bugs. There should be
no need to r
This was discussed and approved in some of the 4.0.0 bugs. There should be
no need to revisit it. It still wouldn't make sense to have loadplugin
HashBL in two *.pre files.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 09:18:51AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Wow, as it's enabled in v342.pre, that would imply it
Wow, as it's enabled in v342.pre, that would imply it was enabled in
3.4.2. We should not have changed a past pre file for the 4.0.0 release
IMO but added it to the 4.0.0.pre file. Such is life. Should we fix it
for 4.0.1?
On 12/28/2022 9:07 AM, Henrik K wrote:
Just keep in mind that HashB
Henrik K skrev den 2022-12-28 15:06:
Of course it's a bit of a double-edged sword, since with ifplugin the
rules
might silently be ignored. Especially for Gentoo users. ;-)
gentoo users does not use precompiled problems
pamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
> >
> > to the .cf files where check_rbl , urirhssub etc are used?
>
> It would be standard to use it yes.
>
> Of course it's a bit of a double-edged sword, since with ifplugin the rules
> might silently be ignored. Especially for Gentoo
.
irrelevant for rule maintainers that some plugins is enabled by default,
all rules must be tested with plugins disabled and still no warn in
--lint
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 09:04:09AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> However, both URIDNSBL and HashBL are enabled by default from checking the
> source code.
Just keep in mind that HashBL is only enabled for fresh 4.0.0 installs, it
wasn't default previously.
s.
Of course it's a bit of a double-edged sword, since with ifplugin the rules
might silently be ignored. Especially for Gentoo users. ;-)
Going further, you might just encapsulate your entire cf file in to
ifplugin checks, one for URIDNSBL and one for HashBL and any other
plugins you need.
However, both URIDNSBL and HashBL are enabled by default from checking
the source code.
Regards,
KAM
On 12/28/2022 8:58 AM, Riccardo Alfi
On 28/12/22 14:44, Henrik K wrote:
It is enabled by default for new installs in v342.pre (old users must enable
it manually). But like with any other loadable plugin, one MUST check use
"ifplugin" to check that it's loaded.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Would you then suggest to add also
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2022-12-28 14:48:
And posters should do their homework as well and post information that
shows what is the problem, how to recreate it, and the expected
outcome. Your posts on this thread are borderline nonsensical.
i did, but you did not understand me, sorry for th
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2022-12-28 14:44:
On 12/28/2022 8:35 AM, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
Ah, I thought it was enabled by default in SA 4.0.
You are correct. HashBL is by default enabled in a stock distribution
with v342.pre. That doesn't mean the trouble
On 12/28/2022 8:33 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
I have no idea what the check plugin is. Read your quoted line again.
don't read the source ?,
https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/rules/v320.pre#L21
My question was: Do you have the Plugin HashBL enabled.
i have in my test
Riccardo Alfieri skrev den 2022-12-28 14:35:
On 28/12/22 14:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
Ah, I thought it was enabled by default in SA 4.0.
only check is on --lint testing, if all plugins is default enabled
multiple errors is hidded
hopefully developper
On 12/28/2022 8:35 AM, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
Ah, I thought it was enabled by default in SA 4.0.
You are correct. HashBL is by default enabled in a stock distribution
with v342.pre. That doesn't mean the trouble reporter has it enabled.
--
Kevin A. McGrai
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 01:35:22PM +, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
> On 28/12/22 14:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
> >
> >
> Ah, I thought it was enabled by default in SA 4.0.
It is enabled by default for new installs in v342.pre (old users must enable
it ma
Riccardo Alfieri skrev den 2022-12-28 14:34:
Looks like you didn't replace the DQS key in the template, as it's
outlined in the README.
i will not share my key here
You also have a lot of parsing errors that are not normal (\t should
be a , don't know why your system renders that badly)
sh.
On 28/12/22 14:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
Ah, I thought it was enabled by default in SA 4.0.
--
Best regards,
Riccardo Alfieri
Spamhaus Technology
https://www.spamhaus.com/
Looks like you didn't replace the DQS key in the template, as it's
outlined in the README.
You also have a lot of parsing errors that are not normal (\t should be
a , don't know why your system renders that badly)
On 28/12/22 14:17, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Dec 28 14:12:09.837 [1461] warn: confi
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2022-12-28 14:24:
I have no idea what the check plugin is. Read your quoted line again.
don't read the source ?,
https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/rules/v320.pre#L21
i have in my test only this plugin enabled, rest is disabled
rule mainta
I have no idea what the check plugin is. Read your quoted line again.
On 12/28/2022 8:22 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2022-12-28 14:20:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
read your quoted line again ?
On 12/28/2022 8:17 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
above is with onl
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2022-12-28 14:20:
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
read your quoted line again ?
On 12/28/2022 8:17 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
above is with only check plugin enabled, this should lint without
warnings
Do you have hashbl plugin enabled?
On 12/28/2022 8:17 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
above is with only check plugin enabled, this should lint without
warnings
--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linked
Riccardo Alfieri skrev den 2022-12-28 11:44:
Hello everyone,
just FYI, I published the updated rules to have DQS working on SA
4.0.0+ (https://github.com/spamhaus/spamassassin-dqs)
Thanks to the effort of all SA developers there is no need anymore to
install a dedicated plugin, as all of our
Hello everyone,
just FYI, I published the updated rules to have DQS working on SA 4.0.0+
(https://github.com/spamhaus/spamassassin-dqs)
Thanks to the effort of all SA developers there is no need anymore to
install a dedicated plugin, as all of our functions have been backported
in SA's
The SpamAssassin has published a rules file for eons along with
releases, e.g. the bolded part of the release:
Released version, 4.0.0
SpamAssassin in tar.gz format. (signatures: GPG SHA-256 SHA-512)
SpamAssassin in tar.bz2 format. (signatures: GPG SHA-256 SHA-512)
SpamAssassin in
1 - 100 of 1006 matches
Mail list logo
