On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:46:55AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
>George Georgalis writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>> >On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
>> >> >coming thru a trus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Georgalis writes:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
> >On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
> >> >coming thru a trusted path?
> >>
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean Doherty writes:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Jim Maul writes:
> > > This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> > > assigned to my s
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:40:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:16, George Georgalis wrote:
>
>> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible
>> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network.
>
>> >So why not set trusted
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:16, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible
> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network.
> >So why not set trusted_networks to 127.0.0.1. That way you can
> >be certain that the rule
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
>> >coming thru a trusted path?
>>
>> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable
>> the tes
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
> >coming thru a trusted path?
>
> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable
> the test.
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3406
>
> My /
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:24:57AM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:37, George Georgalis wrote:
>
>> skip_rbl_checks 1
>> use_bayes 0
>>
>> noautolearn 1
>> use_auto_whitelist 0
>> score AWL 0.001
>>
>> trusted_networks 192.168.
>> score ALL_TRUSTED 0.001
>
>Do you mean -0.001
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:37, George Georgalis wrote:
> skip_rbl_checks 1
> use_bayes 0
>
> noautolearn 1
> use_auto_whitelist 0
> score AWL 0.001
>
> trusted_networks 192.168.
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0.001
Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
coming thru a trusted path?
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Jim Maul writes:
> > This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> > assigned to my server. It has no public IP assigned to it. However, i
> > have a router/firewall i
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 18:24, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 01:07 PM 11/1/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
> > > so the *next* step must be the external MX.
> >
> >My 10.x server is inside a firewall which NATs port 25 so this
> >conclusion is not correct. I imagine that my setup isn't all
> >that different fro
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 03:13:50PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>At 02:11 PM 11/1/2004, George Georgalis wrote:
>>those false negatives are also growing an AWL, which I also don't want.
>>
>>-1.4 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
>>
>>how do I disable and purge any A
At 02:11 PM 11/1/2004, George Georgalis wrote:
those false negatives are also growing an AWL, which I also don't want.
-1.4 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
how do I disable and purge any AWL and ABL generation, too?
Well, there is no "ABL" just one system called
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Maul writes:
> This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> assigned to my server. It has no public IP assigned to it. However, i
> have a router/firewall in front of it which has a public ip assigned to
> its wan interf
>
> >>> Yep, that's right -- and trusted_networks will fix it.
> >>
> >>Yes trusted_networks does indeed fix the issue, but I'm
> still not so
> >>sure that the algorithm to deduce trusted_networks is
> correct (if not
> >>specified).
>
> In any event, how is it disabled? I'm getting false ne
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:03:36PM -0500, George Georgalis wrote:
>In any event, how is it disabled? I'm getting false negatives...
>
>-2.8 ALL_TRUSTEDDid not pass through any untrusted hosts
>
>In my setup SA doesn't get _any_ trusted network connections, those
>connections are routed
>>> Yep, that's right -- and trusted_networks will fix it.
>>
>>Yes trusted_networks does indeed fix the issue, but I'm still
>>not so sure that the algorithm to deduce trusted_networks is
>>correct (if not specified).
In any event, how is it disabled? I'm getting false negatives...
-2.8 ALL_TRU
Sean Doherty wrote:
Justin,
- if any addresses of the 'by' host is in a reserved network range,
then it's trusted
However, I would have thought that this would imply that the 10.0.0.53
host is trusted and not any servers connecting to it.
The problem is that 10.x is a private net, therefore Sp
At 01:07 PM 11/1/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
> The problem is that 10.x is a private net, therefore SpamAssassin infers
> it cannot possibly be the external MX sitting out there on the internet.
> (for a host to be sitting on the public internet accepting SMTP
> connections, it'd obviously need a pub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean Doherty writes:
> Justin,
>
> > > - if any addresses of the 'by' host is in a reserved network range,
> > > then it's trusted
> > >
> > > However, I would have thought that this would imply that the 10.0.0.53
> > > host is trusted and not an
Justin,
> > - if any addresses of the 'by' host is in a reserved network range,
> > then it's trusted
> >
> > However, I would have thought that this would imply that the 10.0.0.53
> > host is trusted and not any servers connecting to it.
>
> The problem is that 10.x is a private net, there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean Doherty writes:
> I'm looking for some clarification on trusted_networks, the
> ALL_TRUSTED rule, and in particular how trusted_networks are
> inferred if not specified in local.cf.
>
> Since upgrading to 3.0.1 I have seen an increase in false
Hi,
I'm looking for some clarification on trusted_networks, the
ALL_TRUSTED rule, and in particular how trusted_networks are
inferred if not specified in local.cf.
Since upgrading to 3.0.1 I have seen an increase in false
negatives, which would have otherwise been caught if not for
the ALL_TRU
23 matches
Mail list logo
