On 10 Jul 2017 at 16:56, RW wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:48:29 +0200
> Frantisek Rysanek wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Debian users,
> >
> > it seems that I've found the correct answer.
> >
> > In /etc/spamassassin/local.cf,
> > in addition to the aforementioned:
> > use_bayes 1
> > bayes_a
...oops, forgot to forward to the SA mailing list, apologies...
-
There's more, it seems like that wasn't the end-game yet :-)
Just after I sent the previous optimistic message,
I got a cold shower: the BAYES scores were gone again.
So I went back to some serious level of debug,
tried rem
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:48:29 +0200
Frantisek Rysanek wrote:
> Dear fellow Debian users,
>
> it seems that I've found the correct answer.
>
> In /etc/spamassassin/local.cf,
> in addition to the aforementioned:
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_auto_learn 1
> I have added:
>
> use_bayes_rules 1
>
> F
Dear fellow Debian users,
it seems that I've found the correct answer.
In /etc/spamassassin/local.cf,
in addition to the aforementioned:
use_bayes 1
bayes_auto_learn 1
I have added:
use_bayes_rules 1
Found when trawling the /usr/share/perl5/Mail directory,
namely discovered in SpamAssas
Dear polite people in the SA users' mailing list,
I would appreciate any help with the following setup.
For the record, I'm sending this same text to the
debian-users mailing list - I'm not technically
cross-posting, as that would probably earn me a bad
reputation (or a kick).
I've just built a
Am 04.08.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Chris:
> Greylisting is just one of several tools available to a system
> administrator for filtering out spam
as multiple described it does not
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG, 80
I do not use postfix but I do greylist so I thought I would chime in
with my opinion.
Greylisting is just one of several tools available to a system
administrator for filtering out spam, like any of the other tools if
used incorrectly it will be problematic.
I do much cheaper filtering first befo
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote:
Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail
MTA?
content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use
content-filter to help on its problem
postfix can use se
Am 02.08.2016 um 23:02 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote:
Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail
MTA?
content-filter works nicely in postfix
which is not the topic
but that postscreen will not use
content-filter to help on its
On 2016-08-02 21:27, Robert Schetterer wrote:
you may use a complete postfix server including postscreen etc "before"
sendmailbut then it might better to simply change to postfix in
total, but such setups are often use with MS exchange
if that can serve as a content-filter it could be used
On 2016-08-02 20:00, John Hardin wrote:
Is there any way to use postscreen as a frontend filter for a sendmail
MTA?
content-filter works nicely in postfix, but that postscreen will not use
content-filter to help on its problem
postfix can use sendmail as a content-filter
what goal ?
On 2 Aug 2016, at 14:00, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
What's special about the postscreen delay is:
1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it
catches MANY more bots than a simple delay.
2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by
Am 02.08.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
>>
>>> What's special about the postscreen delay is:
>>>
>>> 1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it
>>> catches MANY more bots than a si
Am 02.08.2016 um 20:00 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
What's special about the postscreen delay is:
1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it
catches MANY more bots than a simple delay.
2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
What's special about the postscreen delay is:
1. It delays only the last line of a multi-line greeting, so it catches MANY
more bots than a simple delay.
2. It caches PASS results so even the very short (6s by default) delay that
it imposes only hits the
Am 02.08.2016 um 18:55 schrieb Bill Cole:
Combined, this is why Sendmail and other MTA greeting delays are less
spectacularly effective than they used to be and less effective than
postscreen. The resource cost of prolonging every session to 6s is
untenable for busy machines, so bots that have
On 1 Aug 2016, at 15:53, Axb wrote:
On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent Fox wrote:
I keep seeing people say "well if you have postscreen, greylisting is
just dumb".
I think that's a bit too strong. Robust greylisting that accommodates
the reality of mail systems that share one spool across many out
On 01 Aug 2016, at 11:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be
>>> that postscreen is bad aswell ?
>
> On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Ama
Am 02.08.2016 um 00:05 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 2016-08-01 19:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
while we're at it, I really don't understand why they do it like this.
what's the point behind changing IP address after each delivery attempt?
goal is to expose more networks ips to be blocked
On 2016-08-01 19:18, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Shared outbound spool, and the next available host sends it.
next host start a new greylist time frame to delay again
It's not nefarious, just load balancing.
yes misunderstanding what not to do
On 2016-08-01 19:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
while we're at it, I really don't understand why they do it like this.
what's the point behind changing IP address after each delivery
attempt?
goal is to expose more networks ips to be blocked at the recipient
server for abuse, ironical :)
Am 01.08.2016 um 23:36 schrieb sha...@shanew.net:
Others could probably add to that list, but that's just off the top of
my head. But, even if a spam source retries and successfully makes it
past the greylisting, the greylisting still provides potential
benefits, like:
- While it was waiting
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Greylisting was invented as an idea against bots. Its based on the idea
that bots "fire and forget" when they see a tmp error and dont get back.
But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented.
The only problem now is people
ices.
Thus we patch together a simulacrum.
From: Axb
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 12:53:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Postfix and Postgrey -
not scanning after hold)
On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent
On 01.08.2016 21:30, Vincent Fox wrote:
I keep seeing people say "well if you have postscreen, greylisting is just
dumb".
Well what is the equivalent for other MTA?
google for "Greet pause" and "Early talker"
afaik there's implementations for Sendmail and Haraka. There may be
something simi
t I see.
Maybe you could many bots, or newer bots, but not all of them in current
usage recognize the 4xx, wait and retry.
From: @lbutlr
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:55 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is greylisting effective? (was Re: Using Po
Am 01.08.2016 um 19:02 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could
be that postscreen is bad aswell ?
On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote:
Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most bank
On 2016-08-01 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could
be that postscreen is bad aswell ?
On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote:
Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, seve
On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be that
postscreen is bad aswell ?
On 01.08.16 07:46, @lbutlr wrote:
Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines, large
mail services, and many many o
> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could be
>>> that postscreen is bad aswell ?
>> Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airlines,
>> large mail services, and many many others.
>
>
On 2016-08-01 15:46, @lbutlr wrote:
Where did you get the idea that postfix will not deliver later?
i did not say that
i bet greylist is cough invalid mailservers at the doorstep, it could
be that postscreen is bad aswell ?
Sure, if by “invalid” you mean Amazon, most banks, several airline
On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2016-08-01 05:55, @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>> But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented.
>>> The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff.
>> Yeah, tha
On 2016-08-01 05:55, @lbutlr wrote:
On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote:
But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were
invented.
The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff.
Yeah, that about sums it up. Greylisting never worked well, always
c
On 31 Jul 2016, at 01:06, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> But thats historic, bots are recoded, better antibot tecs were invented.
> The only problem now is people still believe in historic stuff.
Yeah, that about sums it up. Greylisting never worked well, always caused
problems with lost email, and
Am 30.07.2016 um 13:10 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>> Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> I don
Am 30.07.2016 um 23:10 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 30 Jul 2016, at 7:10, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote:
I'm no expert here, but postgrey is usually a purely local test. It
should terminate with a "currently busy, try again later" message very
quickly.
Unless your database is very large, yes.
SPF
On 30 Jul 2016, at 7:10, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote:
I'm no expert here, but postgrey is usually a purely local test. It
should terminate with a "currently busy, try again later" message very
quickly.
Unless your database is very large, yes.
SPF checks and white listing require dns lookups
Am 30.07.2016 um 13:10 schrieb Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
I don't use postfix or postscreen.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
I don't use postfix or postscreen.
hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved
Am 30.07.2016 um 03:34 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
>> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>
I don't use postfix or postscreen.
>>> hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ?
>>
>> I am sorry.
Am 29.07.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
I don't use postfix or postscreen.
hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ?
I am sorry. I should have changed the thread subject.
you may get that quite b
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:39:15 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> > I don't use postfix or postscreen.
> hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ?
I am sorry. I should have changed the thread subject.
> you may get that quite better, i see
> a lot of server greylisting
Robert,
As I tried to point out you are at the end of a thread injecting new “life”
into it, which isn’t benefitting the group discussion of an issue.
Thank you,
Ryan
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 201
Am 29.07.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:21:04 +0200
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>> now compare with pure postscreen
>
> I don't use postfix or postscreen.
hm.. that does not fit the subject..why did you involved yourself ?
All I'm showing is that greylisting
>
informative
>
>
>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer > <mailto:r...@sys4.de>> wrote:
>>
>> the subject Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scanning after hold
>> does not match spamassassin list theme
>>
>> however no need to flame in any ca
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 22:21:04 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> now compare with pure postscreen
I don't use postfix or postscreen. All I'm showing is that greylisting
stops a lot of mail, quite cheaply. And hardly anyone notices it.
This is a production system filtering email for hundreds of t
Am 29.07.2016 um 22:15 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:13:56 +0200
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>> so i.e measure mails tagged as spam by spamassassin
>> with pure greylisting setup running before tagging ,perhaps for one
>> week, then stop greylisting ,do the same with pure postsc
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:13:56 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> so i.e measure mails tagged as spam by spamassassin
> with pure greylisting setup running before tagging ,perhaps for one
> week, then stop greylisting ,do the same with pure postscreen setup,
> compare results, this way you may given
Apparently you missed the rest of the thread as it was bypassing the scanning
the SA would do.
But you’re jumping in 11 days (and 42 messages) after the thread started.
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> the subject Using Postfix and Postgrey - not scann
Am 29.07.2016 um 20:45 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:36:51 +0200
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>> Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
>>> I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has
>>> minimal impact. We have it on by default on our spam-filterin
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:36:51 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> > I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has
> > minimal impact. We have it on by default on our spam-filtering
> > service and very few people have even noticed
Am 29.07.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has
> minimal impact. We have it on by default on our spam-filtering
> service and very few people have even noticed it.
show evidence, dont speculate ,measure
i ve done it over years, i
be more polite, and cut your fuse longer
>>
>> seriously - i find it interesting that you tell that me instead the
>> creature which starts calling others names
>
> I was considering the entire exchange, not just your final response.
> Your comment about removing postgrey
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.07.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Shawn Bakhtiar:
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.07.2016 um 18:15 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> > > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald
> > > wrote:
> > > > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Co
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
The reality is most of us (the other 99%) are not dedicated mail admins
and hence that ones should listen was dedicated sysadmins spent thousands of
hours in rock stable system are explaining
...which would be a lot easier to do if it didn't come w
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:12:55 -0600
"@lbutlr" wrote:
> Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice there are so many
> large emailers who can’t do email properly that is causes more
> trouble than it prevents.
I don't agree. Greylisting done properly is very effective and has
minimal imp
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:34:30 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> what do you use? DCC?
No, we have our own code.
> >1) If our customer has whitelisted a sender, but the whitelisted
> >sender is in the From: header and not the envelope, we want the
> >ability to skip greylisting in that case.
Am 29.07.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Shawn Bakhtiar:
On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
etc.).
Am 29.07.2016 um 19:12 schrieb @lbutlr:
On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
etc.).
Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice the
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
>> I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
>> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
>> etc.).
>
> Greylisting is a great idea, in th
On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
> I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
> etc.).
Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice there are so many large
emailers who can’t
Am 29.07.2016 um 18:15 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
> > Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> > I have eliminated postgrey from the installation
Greylisting was the hangup. For whatever reason other settings changes were
being ignored as long as postgrey was in the mix. I removed postgrey and the
RBSL configuration I did a few months ago finally started to work. So there was
likely something else at play but regardless - I removed Postgr
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the
delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first
connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If you implement the
delay *after* you've already received th
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal”
On 29.07.16 10:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was
related to Matus Uhlar
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the
delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first
connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If you implement
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>
> Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> > I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back
> > to “normal”
>
> in
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> Greylisting means *you don't see the content at all during the
> delay*. You tell the sending MTA to try again later when they first
> connect and send the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If you implement the
> delay *after* you've already rece
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was
related to Matus Uhlar's message that concludes with:
"if you run SA, there's no point in running greylisting anymore."
That could be interpreted to read "if you run SA at all, there's
On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was
related to Matus Uhlar's message that concludes with:
"if you run SA, there's no point in running greylisting anymore."
That could be interpreted to read "if you run SA at all, there's no
need for greylisting at all", but I don't th
Am 29.07.2016 um 03:30 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation.
asshole?
just look in your mirror!
On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have e
No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation.
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
>>
>> I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to
>
Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal”
in other words you burried a problem by remove something instead fix the
reason while on every sane setup greylisting comes l
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal”
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>> strange... how do you run spamassassin from postfix?
>>
>>
>> I
On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote:
strange... how do you run spamassassin from postfix?
In master.cf like everyone else…
Um, not so much...
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
-o content_filter=spamassassin
[...]
spamassassin unix - n n
Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email
checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote: why would anyone wants to first run the most expensive filter
using RBL/UR
Am 19.07.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
why would anyone wants
Am 19.07.2016 um 22:42 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
Someone who has dealt with your attitude over in the MySQL mailing list and
would like you to shut up.
Your opinion is laden with so much bullshit and pompous holier-than-thouness
that I will not honor it.
Go away.
RTFM of oyur MUA to delete wh
Someone who has dealt with your attitude over in the MySQL mailing list and
would like you to shut up.
Your opinion is laden with so much bullshit and pompous holier-than-thouness
that I will not honor it.
Go away.
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 19.07.2016 u
Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan
> through SpamAssassin?
>
> I’m watching a
Am 19.07.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_sasl_authenticated
defer_unauth_destination
why defer relaying?
you know what "unauth_destination" means?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_relay_restrictions
http://www.postfi
On 2016-07-19 21:55, Ryan Coleman wrote:
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [:::127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 10.50.0.0/16
none wan ips here ? (possible comment that line if unsure what it need
to be)
if so google "postfix proxy_interface site:postfix.org"
postfix need to know your border ip(s)
smt
Am 19.07.2016 um 21:54 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
Go away.
who the hell do you think you are?
On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote:
maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem
are supposed to work together, then you don#t get r
Am 19.07.2016 um 21:50 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
you can not - postgre
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email
>> checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> using postfix ?
>
>> Or how do I get it to dump back into the
Go away.
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> maybe you should try to understand how the parts of your mailsystem are
> supposed to work together, then you don#t get responses trying to explain you
> why your supposed solution for a non existing problem is broken by design
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
>> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> you can not - postgrey as a policy service is always run
Am 19.07.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
why would anyone wants to
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
>> there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
>
> why would anyone wants to first run the most expensiv
Am 19.07.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
why would anyone wants to first run the most expensive filter using
RBL/URIBL and later greylist a message resulting in to
On 18.07.16 23:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
you can not - postgrey as a policy service is always run before
spamassassin, no matter how it's used.
Or how do I get it to dump
On 2016-07-19 06:44, Ryan Coleman wrote:
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email
checked there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
using postfix ?
Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and
scan through SpamAssassin?
postgrey is
How do I get Spamassassin configured with Postfix to have the email checked
there FIRST before running it through Postgrey?
Or how do I get it to dump back into the queue after the hold time and scan
through SpamAssassin?
I’m watching all my log files and emails that are clearing PostGrey are
> In case its of interested to the list, the spam in question gets very
> high spamassassin rating of 15.3 but was passing by the scanner on the
> size limit. The attachment is a JPG of 600k which is a scan of a scam
600k JPEG? That'd be about 800k base64 encoded.
> letter about bank transf
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
That would specifically include my name, I guess. ;) Good additional
search terms would include size, limit, threshold and of course spamc.
Time range should be the last couple months, maybe half a year.
Since this topic appears to come up more often recently, ma
Quoting John Hardin :
Yes, the default size limit on messages that spamc enforces is less
than 600k.
If you want to scan larger messages you must override that default.
Please see the list archives for the pros and cons.
Ah ok! Thanks! Think I can up it to at least 1Mb based on CPU usage
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 09:47 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
>
> > The dodgy email contains an attachment, if I make a copy of the mail
> > file and delete the email attachment and then scan via scanc it IS
> > correctly processed and marked as spam. The
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
The dodgy email contains an attachment, if I make a copy of the mail
file and delete the email attachment and then scan via scanc it IS
correctly processed and marked as spam. The file with attachment is only
600K so I dont see why this should cau
Hi all,
a couple of spam email messages got passed our spamassassin scanner
today, and on investigation I found some odd behaviour. Our mail
system scans via a pipe using the following command
"/usr/local/bin/spamc -u mailnull". If I cat the spam mail file in
question by doing a cat and
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
