I was somewhat surprised that this failed to score;
http://pastebin.com/m4c75e3ac
Log excerpt;
Sat Sep 12 05:08:57 2009 [7319] info: spamd: result: . 0 -
HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
scantime=0.3,size=5400,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=55111,mid=<00fada512664885bffba2
> I was somewhat surprised that this failed to score;
>
> http://pastebin.com/m4c75e3ac
>
> Log excerpt;
> Sat Sep 12 05:08:57 2009 [7319] info: spamd: result: . 0 -
> HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
> scantime=0.3,size=5400,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=55111,mid=<00fad
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:05 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > I was somewhat surprised that this failed to score;
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m4c75e3ac
> >
> > Log excerpt;
> > Sat Sep 12 05:08:57 2009 [7319] info: spamd: result: . 0 -
> > HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
> > scantime=0.3,size=540
>
> I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like
> this:
>
> 4.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or
> virusbot
>
> This is a vanilla Spamassassin - but I'm surprised I'm
> not getting any score on these here.
What's wrong with the bayes? It works for me.
Botnet i
> On Fri 11 Sep 2009 01:47:38 PM CEST, franc wrote
>
>> Does this mean with amavis spamassassin is NOT used?
>
> dont confuse the answer:)
>
> spamassassin is a client
> spamd is a daemond
> amavisd is a daemond
>
> finaly:
>
> amavisd does not use spamassassin or spamd
>
> clear now ?
spama
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >
> > I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like
> > this:
> >
> > 4.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or
> > virusbot
> >
> > This is a vanilla Spamassassin - but I'm surprised I'm
> > not getting any
> On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> 4.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or
>>> virusbot
>>>
>>> This is a vanilla Spamassassin - but I'm surprised I'm
>>> not getting any
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
What's wrong with the bayes?
Bayes is going out of fashion.
Since when? And according to whom? Bayes is one of the stronger tools
available.
It's just as easy to make a bad one by bad
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, MySQL Student wrote:
are you recieving forwarded emails from spf domains ?
If I understand correctly, no. I have no relationship with any external
source and their SPF records.
if so add the forward ip to trusted_networks (so spf will be disabled
from this hosts)
Do
On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >>
> >> What's wrong with the bayes?
> >
> > Bayes is going out of fashion.
>
> Since when? And according to whom? Bayes is one of
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:02:35AM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, MySQL Student wrote:
>
>>> are you recieving forwarded emails from spf domains ?
>>
>> If I understand correctly, no. I have no relationship with any external
>> source and their SPF records.
>>
>>> if so add the f
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:02:35AM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, MySQL Student wrote:
are you recieving forwarded emails from spf domains ?
If I understand correctly, no. I have no relationship with any external
source and their SPF reco
On lør 12 sep 2009 19:30:09 CEST, Henrik K wrote
PS. SPF is checked on internal, not trusted border. Even though
they are the same for most people..
some ?
and I don't think you can disable SPF checks
in any way except fully.
if spf test is done in mta stage with prepended header for spf p
On lør 12 sep 2009 20:22:21 CEST, John Hardin wrote
Hrm. Changing that might be something to consider, then.
change sa to support srs ?
or spf trusted_networks ?
the later does work in my setup, if one know its not so, please tell
me what my error is
--
xpoint
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On lør 12 sep 2009 20:22:21 CEST, John Hardin wrote
Hrm. Changing that might be something to consider, then.
change sa to support srs ?
or spf trusted_networks ?
The latter. Possibly through another list instead of trusted_networks; the
semanti
No investigation regarding the source channels yet, just an observation.
Am I the only one who noticed a distinct rise of fraud and scam,
typically not triggering Spamhaus ZEN? Getting more and more of them
lately.
guenther -- happy to manually feed the Sought Fraud rule-set, but
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:00 +0100
Clunk Werclick wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What's wrong with the bayes?
> > >
> > > Bayes is goi
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
Am I the only one who noticed a distinct rise of fraud and scam,
typically not triggering Spamhaus ZEN? Getting more and more of them
lately.
Some. Not a flood, but a few more than normal.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.imp
>>> \s is the proper way to represent whitespace.
>>
>> lol, yes, I know that; I was actually trying to match 's' and the
>> slash is the start of the pattern match.
>
> I wasn't referring to the beginning of the RE.
Yeah, I realized that just after I sent this, if anyone cares :-)
Thanks again,
On lør 12 sep 2009 23:46:44 CEST, John Hardin wrote
The latter. Possibly through another list instead of
trusted_networks; the semantics are slightly different and
overloading the current trusted list with an SPF meaning might be a
it will be one more networks list to manage, and keeping tra
On lør 12 sep 2009 15:10:41 CEST, Clunk Werclick wrote
i ignore your reply-to :)
I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like this:
why not ?
4.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
botnet is not standard sa plugin that might be why you not see the hit
hello all
I use qmail toaster with spamassassin -- latest version
i sometimes get spam with both the sender id and recipient id as the same.
Obviously such emails are originating outside my server.
I DO NOT wish to user SPF
what i need to do is as follows
1) get the source ip of the email in a
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 01:34 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:00 +0100
> Clunk Werclick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > > >>
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 06:36 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On lør 12 sep 2009 15:10:41 CEST, Clunk Werclick wrote
>
> i ignore your reply-to :)
>
> > I don't want the Bayes, but I'm not seeing any rules like this:
>
> why not ?
**PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE THREAD TO ANSWER YOU QUESTION**
>
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
