Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to
the spamassassin ruleset?
--
Lars
On 04/10/2011 01:58, RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 23:12:57 +0100
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I'm having a great deal of trouble writing a rule to match something
in a Received: header. The problem is that sendmail(?) is whitespace
wrapping the header. In other words, instead of:
Headers are
On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to
the spamassassin ruleset?
what is 'long'?
ls -lt *.tar.gz | grep 'gz$' | head
-rw-r--r-- 1 rsync rsync 170211 Oct 4 04:51 1178724.tar.gz -- 3.4.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 rsync
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
So, doing this using the actual rule and an actual header it *does* work.
It's only when its run through the milter that it fails to match.
Are you attempting to match the Received: header added by your MTA?
Your MTA may not have added the Received:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 09:39, Michael Scheidell
michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the
spamassassin ruleset?
what is 'long'?
Since 27-Aug-2011 ?
$ ll
On 04/10/2011 14:41, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
So, doing this using the actual rule and an actual header it *does*
work. It's only when its run through the milter that it fails to match.
Are you attempting to match the Received: header added by your MTA?
On 04/10/2011 14:39, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to
the spamassassin ruleset?
Most common reasons for a problem (IME, on FreeBSD)
Incorrect permissions on directory
Incorrect
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
So, doing this using the actual rule and an actual header it *does*
work. It's only when its run through the milter that it fails to match.
Yep. The Received: header on a milter-using system is added *after* the
milter processing is complete.
Any processing that
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
On 04/10/2011 14:41, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
So, doing this using the actual rule and an actual header it *does*
work. It's only
when its run through the milter that it fails to
Here's the problem:
I have a single mail server (not commercial) using sendmail to accept
incoming mail from all sources, and filtering using spamassassin. It
also accepts mail from roaming users - encrypted mail using port 465 and
authenticating users with SASL, and is expected to relay
On 10/4/2011 12:48 PM, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Here's the problem:
I have a single mail server (not commercial) using sendmail to
accept incoming mail from all sources, and filtering using
spamassassin. It also accepts mail from roaming users - encrypted
mail using port 465 and authenticating
-Original Message-
From: Frank Leonhardt [mailto:fra...@extremecomputing.org.uk]
I have a single mail server (not commercial) using sendmail to accept
incoming mail from all sources, and filtering using spamassassin. It also
accepts mail from roaming users - encrypted mail using port
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Here's the problem:
I have a single mail server (not commercial) using sendmail to accept
incoming mail from all sources, and filtering using spamassassin. It
also accepts mail from roaming users - encrypted mail using port 465 and
authenticating users with SASL, and is
On 04/10/2011 19:22, Kris Deugau wrote:
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Here's the problem:
I have a single mail server (not commercial) using sendmail to accept
incoming mail from all sources, and filtering using spamassassin. It
also accepts mail from roaming users - encrypted mail using port 465 and
On 04/10/11 05:50, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have a fedora15 box with v3.3.2 and I have some hotmail spam that I
can't figure out how to catch:
http://pastebin.com/kkUUvYQp
It's hitting BAYES_00 and no blacklists or other significant spam
rules and not sure how to tag it. The user has reported
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Thanks Kris, Kelson and Noel - pretty unanimous answer - just don't call
the milter for stuff on 465! Unfortunately I don't know how to achieve
this, but I'll go off and do some research now I know what I'm trying to
find.
As far as I'm aware you can't bypass a milter -
On 10/4/2011 1:59 PM, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Thanks Kris, Kelson and Noel - pretty unanimous answer - just
don't call the milter for stuff on 465! Unfortunately I don't know
how to achieve this, but I'll go off and do some research now I
know what I'm trying to find.
The alternative is to
On 04/10/2011 20:17, Kris Deugau wrote:
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
Thanks Kris, Kelson and Noel - pretty unanimous answer - just don't call
the milter for stuff on 465! Unfortunately I don't know how to achieve
this, but I'll go off and do some research now I know what I'm trying to
find.
As far
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I think there's a terminology mis-match here. To me milter is a
sendmail mail filter, of which there can be any number configured (this
is me making no assumptions about Postfix c). In this case it's just
spamass-milter (Georg C. F. Greve 2002)
Nope, you've got the
This question comes up enough so that it ought to be in the FAQ.
spamass-milter as others have said does not pay attention to
authenticated mail. Other milters do - but other milters are
often a lot more complicated, and can run slower, to say nothing
of having to learn additional
On 04/10/2011 22:52, Kris Deugau wrote:
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I think there's a terminology mis-match here. To me milter is a
sendmail mail filter, of which there can be any number configured (this
is me making no assumptions about Postfix c). In this case it's just
spamass-milter (Georg C. F.
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 15:10 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This question comes up enough so that it ought to be in the FAQ.
While I believe a FAQ does really not help all that much on and by
itself, but instead serves as a handy place to point people to...
It's a wiki.
Please feel free to add
On 04/10/2011 23:10, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This question comes up enough so that it ought to be in the FAQ.
spamass-milter as others have said does not pay attention to
authenticated mail. Other milters do - but other milters are
often a lot more complicated, and can run slower, to say
On 04/10/2011 23:45, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 15:10 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
This question comes up enough so that it ought to be in the FAQ.
While I believe a FAQ does really not help all that much on and by
itself, but instead serves as a handy place to point
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:10:20 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
There is something to be said for the UNIX philosophy of small
is beautiful You may love your MIMEdefang but why do I have to
run it when this problem is so easily fixed?
This (alone) is no reason to run MIMEDefang.
25 matches
Mail list logo
