I was not able to access http://www.rulesemporium.com? is this working
are moved some where?
Works fine from here. Site is reachable and resolves to 72.52.4.74
which pings fine as well.
--Blaine
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:30 +0530, Johnson Jeba Asir wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> First Im realy dont know this is the right forum to ask my doubts?
>
> I was not able to access http://www.rulesemporium.com? is this working
> are moved some where?
>
> www.rulesemporium.com resolved to 72.52.4.74, but p
On 2/29/2008 9:01 AM, ram wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:30 +0530, Johnson Jeba Asir wrote:
Hi All,
First Im realy dont know this is the right forum to ask my doubts?
I was not able to access http://www.rulesemporium.com? is this working
are moved some where?
www.rulesemporium.com resolved
> On 18/02/2008 7:29 AM, Arthur Dent wrote:
>> Gentle Bump...
>>
>> I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
>> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
>> to give these rules scores which surely they should have by default?
>
> What exactly do you me
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:24AM -, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > On 18/02/2008 7:29 AM, Arthur Dent wrote:
> >> Gentle Bump...
> >>
> >> I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
> >> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
> >> to give these rules sc
Thanks, then It must be a ISP issue, will take up with ISP
Regards,
a.Johnson
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/29/2008 9:01 AM, ram wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:30 +0530, Johnson Jeba Asir wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> First Im realy
Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
are forging our domain'.
Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
Time to blacklist google.
Either google lies or they have been hacked and hackers are spamming through
them. Either case, till google fixes t
Agnello George wrote:
HI
I had installed my Spamassassin on a linux box ( cent os ) to scan
mails from a windows "Smatermail" server and so far it was working
good, but suddenly it started giving the following error :
Fri Feb 29 00:12:49 2008 [27218] info: spamd: handled cleanup of child
pi
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
> are forging our domain'.
>
> Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
> Time to blacklist google.
Yep. That's the whole point of DKIM.
> Either google lies or th
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 29/02/2008 1:18 AM, devi_sreem wrote:
I am running spamd. When a mail is being sent to mail account
[EMAIL PROTECTED] it is automatically taking the user qscand, as you
know it the user is of qmail scanner.
Oh yeah, qmail scanner. Sorry, I won't touch that
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:28 +0500, Shahzad Abid wrote:
> Dear List
>
> How to determine good rules for SA, I am using following rules.
[ gigantic output of ls snipped, including lots of cf files, plugins and
a bunch of unrelated non-rules ]
> Please identify which rules are bad?
Pretty much *a
At 12:08 AM Friday, 2/29/2008, blaine wrote -=>
I was not able to access http://www.rulesemporium.com? is this working
are moved some where?
Works fine from here. Site is reachable and resolves to 72.52.4.74
which pings fine as well.
Something's broken somewhere. From sunny Los Angeles whe
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:04 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Of course, now that I've used the word "whore" three times and quoted it
> once I'm sure I'll get a deluge of bounces (not rejects) from people
> running Microsoft's Antigen for SMTP.
>
> http://daryl.dostech.ca/blog/2008/02/22/microso
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 11:36 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
> any takers on this?
On what? The Subject or the not included original post?
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Chip M. wrote:
> > The main thing that stands out (to me) is the China TLD in the URL.
> > We block all those on sight (unless they're
We got a tie!
> I'm curious to see the reason for /dev/null'ing this mail and instead
> send out a useless and annoying note. Which one will win the race, whore
> or triple x? :)
Though the photo-finish seems to suggest the whore pipped triple x at
the post...
Filter name: "KEYWORD= profanity: w
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 08:54 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Blocking is one thing, but scoring is another. Aren't single words
> defined in many rules for spamassassin? I know "fsck"
> and "v%%gra" are which are not part of a meta rule.
Exactly my point, and I believ
I have the same problem here:
traceroute to www.rulesemporium.com (72.52.4.74), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1 roxanne.pcez.com (209.102.124.1) 0.179 ms 0.146 ms 0.143 ms
2 52.ATM5-0.GW9.POR3.ALTER.NET (157.130.180.65) 3.016 ms 3.190 ms 2.917 ms
3 0.so-4-3-0.XT2.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:04 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Of course, now that I've used the word "whore" three times and quoted it
once I'm sure I'll get a deluge of bounces (not rejects) from people
running Microsoft's Antigen for SMTP.
http://daryl.dostech.ca/
User for SpamAssassin Mail List wrote:
I have the same problem here:
traceroute to www.rulesemporium.com (72.52.4.74), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1 roxanne.pcez.com (209.102.124.1) 0.179 ms 0.146 ms 0.143 ms
2 52.ATM5-0.GW9.POR3.ALTER.NET (157.130.180.65) 3.016 ms 3.190 ms 2.917 ms
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
are forging our domain'.
Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
Time to blacklist google.
Either google lies or they have been hacked and hackers are spamming through
them. Eit
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
are forging our domain'.
Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
Time to blacklist google.
Either google lies or they have been hacked and hackers are spamming through
them. Eithe
Well, same here, from Argentina
2008/2/29, DAve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> User for SpamAssassin Mail List wrote:
> > I have the same problem here:
> >
> > traceroute to www.rulesemporium.com (72.52.4.74), 30 hops max, 38 byte
> > packets
> > 1 roxanne.pcez.com (209.102.124.1) 0.179 ms 0.146
At 06:16 AM 2/29/2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
Some people might think you are over reacting
I can only imagine what it would be like trying to control outgoing
spam at Google.
The problem is Google does nothing.
I've reported dozens of google groups newsgroup spammers. They take
no action
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because
people
are forging our domain'.
Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
Time to blacklist google.
I read an article the other day about the bad people have cracked
gmail's captcha syst
Hello,
my mac os x leopard (10.5.2 with updated amavis-new and spamassassin)
runs a script, which calls sa-learn with sudo and user _amavis.
In the config files for amavis and clamAV the user is set to _amavis.
Now sa-learn always tries to open /var/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs,
which of course fa
Ed Kasky wrote:
At 12:08 AM Friday, 2/29/2008, blaine wrote -=>
I was not able to access http://www.rulesemporium.com? is this working
are moved some where?
Works fine from here. Site is reachable and resolves to 72.52.4.74
which pings fine as well.
Something's broken somewhere. From sunn
* Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some people might think you are over reacting
>
> I can only imagine what it would be like trying to control outgoing spam
> at Google.
Well, there's a difference between:
* we didn't do it (altough evidence says they did)
and
* we're sorry, we're work
The last two messages I sent were duplicated on this list. I'm not sure
why and I hope this one isn't duplicated. I'm using Exim and I'm only
seeing one entry in my log. If anyone knows what might be causing this
I'd be more than happy to fix the problem. Until then, I apologize for
the dups.
Matthias Schmidt escribió:
Hello,
my mac os x leopard (10.5.2 with updated amavis-new and spamassassin)
runs a script, which calls sa-learn with sudo and user _amavis.
In the config files for amavis and clamAV the user is set to _amavis.
Now sa-learn always tries to open /var/root/.spamassassin/u
In regards to
backhair.cf
backhair is a set of rules designed to catch those ugly, unsightly HTML
tags. Created by: Jennifer Wheeler
are unsightly HTML tags just referring to basic HTML coding or something
else we should better understand as spam fighting warriors
Thank you
- rh
In regards to
backhair.cf
backhair is a set of rules designed to catch those ugly, unsightly HTML
tags. Created by: Jennifer Wheeler
are unsightly HTML tags just referring to basic HTML coding or something
else we should better understand as spam fighting warriors
Thank you
- rh
Hi,
I have installed spamassassin on my freebsd 6.3 and everything works great
but after some time (it could be couple of days, or hours) the CPU utilization
on spamass-milter goes to almost 100%.
I have discovered that the following messages cause the 100% utilization:
Feb 29 04:22:32
>
> The last two messages I sent were duplicated on this list. I'm not sure
> why and I hope this one isn't duplicated. I'm using Exim and I'm only
> seeing one entry in my log. If anyone knows what might be causing this
> I'd be more than happy to fix the problem. Until then, I apologize for
> t
Hello,
I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
lookups, don't they?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek rekl
I'm getting the following error from various perl programs:
$sa-update
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Scalar/Util.pm line 30.
OK... maybe we need an update:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# perl -MCPAN -e shell
cpan> install
On 29/02/2008 1:11 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
> lookups, don't they?
Network, no... the rules just need a suitable message, SA and a Perl
interpreter. :)
Seriously though, the SPF plugin (in 3.2+) can r
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
lookups, don't they?
Yes. Network related.
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:43 -0800, Robert - elists wrote:
> In regards to
>
> backhair.cf
>
> backhair is a set of rules designed to catch those ugly, unsightly HTML
> tags. Created by: Jennifer Wheeler
>
> are unsightly HTML tags just referring to basic HTML coding or something
> else we shoul
On 29/02/2008 12:51 PM, Aflatoon Aflatooni wrote:
> Hi,
> I have installed spamassassin on my freebsd 6.3 and everything works
> great but after some time (it could be couple of days, or hours) the CPU
> utilization on spamass-milter goes to almost 100%.
> I have discovered that the following messa
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 19:57 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:43 -0800, Robert - elists wrote:
> > backhair is a set of rules designed to catch those ugly, unsightly HTML
> > tags. Created by: Jennifer Wheeler
> >
> > are unsightly HTML tags just referring to basic HTM
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
> lookups, don't they?
Yes, DNS is required. What makes you think that SPF isn't considered a
network test though? Right in the code is:
return u
At 05:09 29-02-2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
Something's broken somewhere. From sunny Los Angeles where it was
80 degrees yesterday:
The traceroute output doesn't mean that something is broken.
The web site in the subject line has denial of service
protection. It may be reachable by some and unreac
On 29/02/2008 2:05 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
>> lookups, don't they?
>
> Yes, DNS is required.
Only if there aren't Received-SPF headers to reuse
yes. If they're not marked as such, that's a bug...
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
> lookups, don't they?
> --
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Time to blacklist google.
>
> The users may complain if you do that.
To [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problem solved!
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einr
At 11:20 AM Friday, 2/29/2008, SM wrote -=>
At 05:09 29-02-2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
Something's broken somewhere. From sunny Los Angeles where it was
80 degrees yesterday:
The traceroute output doesn't mean that something is broken.
The web site in the subject line has denial of service
protec
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Time to blacklist google.
The users may complain if you do that.
To [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problem solved!
No. Your users may complain to you that they're unable to receive email
from colleagues/friends/etc. who use google.
Though, dependin
The abuse contacts were removed from the Cc to prevent abuse.
At 04:51 29-02-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
are forging our domain'.
Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig says its google.
If it passes DKIM verification
Hi!
The traceroute output doesn't mean that something is broken.
The web site in the subject line has denial of service protection. It may
be reachable by some and unreachable to others.
How then would you explain why it worked just fine up until some point this
week? Has the denial of se
>
> If I understand your question correctly... The latter. Obfuscation.
>
> You did have a look at the rules file and the rules description, right?
> It's about injected HTML tags "inside" words or to hide part of the
> gibberish as a means of preventing plain word matching, IIRC. It's been
> a w
Steven Stern wrote:
I'm getting the following error from various perl programs:
$sa-update
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Scalar/Util.pm line 30.
OK... maybe we need an update:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# perl -MCPAN -
At 12:39 PM Friday, 2/29/2008, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote -=>
Hi!
The traceroute output doesn't mean that something is broken.
The web site in the subject line has denial of service
protection. It may be reachable by some and unreachable to others.
How then would you explain why it worked jus
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 13:27 -0800, Robert - elists wrote:
> > Anyway, why are you asking? You're not pondering to use it, are you?
>
> I looked at the file, yet as a rule making novice it didn't mean a lot to me
> so I wondered what it does.
>
> Yes, I was wondering if it was a good idea to incl
>
> Not with any 3.x version.
>
> guenther
>
:-)
Oops, my fault... I missed that part even though I was looking for it
What about this Chinese ruleset, anyone in the USA using it to help with
occasional or massive incoming foreign spam?
I would guess it puts quite a load on the system eh?
Greetings
I have utilised Spam Assasin for many years through a couple of hosting
accounts, however, over recent months I started getting a large volume of
emails that had semingly been passed through by Spam Assasin marked as not
spam but with no values in the other SA headers. Below is an exam
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 14:42 -0800, Robert - elists wrote:
> What about this Chinese ruleset, anyone in the USA using it to help with
> occasional or massive incoming foreign spam?
Is there any particular need for additional rules, or are you just
fishing for fun? That's quite a jump from backhair.
>
> On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 14:42 -0800, Robert - elists wrote:
> > What about this Chinese ruleset, anyone in the USA using it to help with
> > occasional or massive incoming foreign spam?
>
> Is there any particular need for additional rules, or are you just
> fishing for fun? That's quite a jum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/29/2008 03:57 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
| Steven Stern wrote:
|> I'm getting the following error from various perl programs:
|>
|> $sa-update
|> Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
|> /usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thr
> Yeah, I am fishing a little... mainly for people with experience with these
> rulesets to speak up as necessary
>
> It is a global world and we have different languages traversing our systems.
> You mentioned some of them...
Which ones? The Western charset ones in the footnote, or the one with
Hi,
This is similar to what I'm seeing. However I get question marks on
my spam status. Here is a sample header what I'm seeing:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Lorena Aguilar" <[EMAIL P
On Friday 29 February 2008, SM wrote:
>The abuse contacts were removed from the Cc to prevent abuse.
>
>At 04:51 29-02-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>Ok, google/gmail emails back says 'this didn't come from us because people
>>are forging our domain'.
>>
>>Reverse dns shows it google, dkim sig sa
If gmail has a problem, then without a doubt, blacklist them until they fix
it. Seems pretty simple to me.
I know that the ISP's I run mail systems for would lose their customers
if they stop getting mail from Google. The customer attitude is that
the provider should take measures to bloc
At 02:48 PM 2/29/2008, fLaMePr0oF wrote:
Greetings
I have utilised Spam Assasin for many years through a couple of hosting
accounts, however, over recent months I started getting a large volume of
emails that had semingly been passed through by Spam Assasin marked as not
spam but with no values
X-Spam-Status: No, score=
X-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Bar:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Bar is not a standard SA header. Someone asked about this a few
weeks ago, but I don't recall the result of the thread. My best guess at
the moment is that whatever integration tool you are using is calling SA and
th
64 matches
Mail list logo
