Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[ram]

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 19:48 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> ram wrote:
> > Hi 
> >
> > In my local.cf I have 
> >
> > --
> > score USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -100
> >
> > priority USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -1000
> > priority RCVD_IN_XBL -800
> >
> >
> > shortcircuit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST on
> > shortcircuit RCVD_IN_XBL spam
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > So I expect RCVD_IN_XBL to be evaluated after USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST ,
> > but this does not happen 
> > If a mail hits RCVD_IN_XBL it is immediately marked spam even if it were
> > to hit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST 
> > I disable short circuit plugin and it works fine 
> >
> >
> > How do I enforce SA to wait for results negative short circuited rules
> > of higher priority  before shorcicuiting mail as spam due to positive
> > ones
> >   
> You can't apply priority to DNS based checks this way and be 100% sure 
> of never getting a match.
> 
> DNS queries are launched before any other rules start running. It then 
> runs the rules, and collects the results later on. This way, the DNS 
> queries run in parallel with the message scan.
> 
> A shortcircuit will cause SA to cut-short any waiting for answers on the 
> DNS tests, but IIRC, any that did complete already will still match. 
> Technically, SA waits until something like priority 500 before it starts 
> waiting for all the DNS tests to complete.
> 
> In general, shortcircuit isn't intended to be a rule-bypassing measure, 
> it's a speed measure. You'd have to use a non DNS test to be sure that 
> shortcircuit is working.


So would you suggest I remove all shortcircuit on DNS Rules.
Is there anyway I can get USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST evaluated before  All
other tests 


Thanks
Ram

Re: 60_whitelist.cf

[Sahil Tandon]

Benny Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, June 26, 2008 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for everyone's tips..
> 
> tips will stop from me when you cc me and post on maillist

No big deal; use Procmail to suppress double-delivery instead of getting your 
panties in a twist.  Also set your Reply-To accordingly.

> > Stupid question:
> 
> there is only stupid answers

Don't mislead; there *are* stupid questions.  For context:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

[...]

-- 
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Matt Kettler]

Benny Pedersen wrote:

On Thu, June 26, 2008 04:40, Matt Kettler wrote:

  

I'll attempt to do so. Didn't realize you disliked it.



its like asking 2 times for the same answer and wonder why no answer
  
Well then set a Reply-to header to point to the list when you post 
here... That's what the header's for, and your MUA is the only RFC 
compliant spot that header should be generated.




I'm SA interpreted the Received header as meaning that athena.apache.org
found no reverse-lookup the host, and that 206.46.173.3 is a host with
no reverse DNS claiming to be vms173003pub.verizon.net. At least, that's
how I'd read that header.. the FM_FAKE_HELO_VERIZON is likely an early
rule trying to detect hosts using verizon helo's that aren't really
verizon hosts.



well i asked if you know reverse dns patterns olso for verizon net or if
verizon olso know there trouble ?, few years i have seen spam from verizon
but not more then from others, it could nice to know atleast for me if
thay use smtp auth and or what there outgoing host is for this if any,
maybe you use smtp auth now on this msg here ?

if so that fake helo should not be fake :=)
  
Well, it shouldn't be fake, because 206.46.173.3 really is 
vms173003pub.verizon.net.


However, it would appear that athena.apache.orgdidn't get an answer to 
its PTR querry.. either that or the headers generated by 
athena.apache.org are just broken.

Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Benny Pedersen]

On Fri, June 27, 2008 04:28, Rubin Bennett wrote:

> ?People and their delicate egos...
> *grumble*

smile :)

X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0-4.1mdv2008.1

another mua is found brokken


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Rubin Bennett]

Fer the love of Pete guys, take this offline.  This has *nothing* to do
with SpamAssassin other than making me wish my system would toss this
whole damn thread.

People and their delicate egos...
*grumble*

Rubin

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 04:13 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote:
> 
> > Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic.
> 
> hmm
> 
> AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist
> without sending cc
> 
> you talk like its my problem right ?
> 
> is AppleMail the only option you have ?
> 
> if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on
> apple support
> 
> squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/
> 
> 
-- 
Rubin Bennett
RB Technologies
http://thatitguy.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(802)223-4448

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety"
  --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Benny Pedersen]

On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote:

> Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic.

hmm

AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist
without sending cc

you talk like its my problem right ?

is AppleMail the only option you have ?

if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on
apple support

squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Michael Parker]

On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:



On Thu, June 26, 2008 23:09, Larry Nedry wrote:


Benny, you might want to read the docs:


docs needs updating, all test i have done is showing this is not  
working

so here



Hmmm then you are running a faulty or modified version I guess, here  
is the code:


  foreach my $priority (sort { $a <=> $b } keys %{$pms->{conf}- 
>{priorities}}) {


If you've got a repro of it not working that way, I invite you to file  
a bug with that repro.


Michael

Re: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Jo Rhett]

Dave, what are you complaining about?  This thread went sideways  
without my involvement.  I was replying to someone else's query about  
Benny's mail servers sending back random SPF failure backscatter  
messages.


On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Dave Koontz wrote:
Jo, didn't you get your answer several times now?  I don't  
understand why this thread continues.


Jo Rhett wrote:

On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:

then stop cc me

X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
   tests=FM_FAKE_HELO_VERIZON,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
designates 206.46.173.3 as permitted sender)
Received: from [206.46.173.3] (HELO vms173003pub.verizon.net)  
(206.46.173.3)
   by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008  
00:56:44 +



What exactly does CCing someone have to do with bouncing back  
incorrect SPF failure messages?


I'm sorry, but you're a constant source of backscatter, Benny.



--


*Dave Koontz* (MCSE/GCIH)
Associate Director
Computer & Information Services
*Mary Baldwin College*
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (540) 887-7399





--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness

MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:

and you are a constant ignorant sending me cc

get a life



Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic.

Sending someone a CC to a message they sent, and to which their mail  
headers sets reply-to, is only a problem in Bennys mind.  But he sends  
backscatter because he doesn't like the behavior, even though he could  
easily configure his mailer so that when people hit reply it does what  
he wants it to.


--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness

Re: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Benny Pedersen]

On Fri, June 27, 2008 02:08, Jo Rhett wrote:

> I'm sorry, but you're a constant source of backscatter, Benny.

and you are a constant ignorant sending me cc

get a life


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:

then stop cc me

X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
tests=FM_FAKE_HELO_VERIZON,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
designates 206.46.173.3 as permitted sender)
Received: from [206.46.173.3] (HELO vms173003pub.verizon.net)  
(206.46.173.3)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008  
00:56:44 +



What exactly does CCing someone have to do with bouncing back  
incorrect SPF failure messages?


I'm sorry, but you're a constant source of backscatter, Benny.

--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 23:09, Larry Nedry wrote:

> Benny, you might want to read the docs:

docs needs updating, all test i have done is showing this is not working
so here


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Matt Kettler]

ram wrote:
Hi 

In my local.cf I have 


--
score USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -100

priority USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -1000
priority RCVD_IN_XBL -800


shortcircuit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST on
shortcircuit RCVD_IN_XBL spam
--



So I expect RCVD_IN_XBL to be evaluated after USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST ,
but this does not happen 
If a mail hits RCVD_IN_XBL it is immediately marked spam even if it were
to hit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST 
I disable short circuit plugin and it works fine 



How do I enforce SA to wait for results negative short circuited rules
of higher priority  before shorcicuiting mail as spam due to positive
ones
  
You can't apply priority to DNS based checks this way and be 100% sure 
of never getting a match.


DNS queries are launched before any other rules start running. It then 
runs the rules, and collects the results later on. This way, the DNS 
queries run in parallel with the message scan.


A shortcircuit will cause SA to cut-short any waiting for answers on the 
DNS tests, but IIRC, any that did complete already will still match. 
Technically, SA waits until something like priority 500 before it starts 
waiting for all the DNS tests to complete.


In general, shortcircuit isn't intended to be a rule-bypassing measure, 
it's a speed measure. You'd have to use a non DNS test to be sure that 
shortcircuit is working.

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[Michael Monnerie]

On Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 Florian Lindner wrote:
> Can I use two different bayes DBs? One for my family without training
>   (just the auto train functions) and one for me that is trained?

You don't want that, really. If you use a trained bayes, it helps all. 
You do not have to have all spam that your family gets also. Don't 
forget that bayes auto-learns also. So just take your ham/spam, keep 
bayes in training, and let it learn. Feed all e-mails with it, and the 
results will be good.

mfg zmi
-- 
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc-  http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31  .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38  500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net   Key-ID: 1C1209B4


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Michael Parker]

On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Larry Nedry wrote:


On 6/26/08 at 7:05 PM +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:
make priority positive not negative, default all have 0 to start  
with, and

10 would be tested before 0 :-)


And again on 6/26/08 at 10:06 PM +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:

On Thu, June 26, 2008 21:17, Michael Parker wrote:

Negative numbers come before positive numbers.


nope

order is positive to negative

you might find it is correct by testing more :)


Benny, you might want to read the docs:



Or just believe the person that actually wrote the code.

Michael

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Larry Nedry]

On 6/26/08 at 7:05 PM +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:
>make priority positive not negative, default all have 0 to start with, and
>10 would be tested before 0 :-)

And again on 6/26/08 at 10:06 PM +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:
>On Thu, June 26, 2008 21:17, Michael Parker wrote:
>> Negative numbers come before positive numbers.
>
>nope
>
>order is positive to negative
>
>you might find it is correct by testing more :)

Benny, you might want to read the docs:


"priority SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAME n
Assign a specific priority to a test. All tests, except for DNS and Meta
tests, are run in increasing priority value order (negative priority values
are run before positive priority values). The default test priority is 0
(zero).
The values <-99> and <-98> have a special meaning
internally, and should not be used."

Nedry

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 21:17, Michael Parker wrote:

> That is not correct.

so then sagrey is brokken

> Negative numbers come before positive numbers.

nope

order is positive to negative

you might find it is correct by testing more :)


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Michael Parker]

On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:



On Thu, June 26, 2008 17:13, ram wrote:

How do I enforce SA to wait for results negative short circuited  
rules

of higher priority  before shorcicuiting mail as spam due to positive
ones


make priority positive not negative, default all have 0 to start  
with, and

10 would be tested before 0 :-)



That is not correct.

Negative numbers come before positive numbers.

Michael

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[John Hardin]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:

Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to fiddle with the threshold as all the 
base rulesets are scored by the masscheck process with the assumption that 
5 is "spammy".


Sorry, I don't understand this. What is difference between changing the 
threshold and deleting all spam messages or leave the threshold at 5 and 
deleting mail with 9 points.


Raising the threshold will result in more emails that are obviously spam 
to a human being coming into their mailbox without a [SPAM] tag. It will 
make your antispam efforts look less effective - you're guaranteeing 
yourself more false negatives.


Leaving the threshold at 5 and deleting at the higher threshold will 
result in lower-scoring (i.e. possibly-not-spam) spams being delivered 
with a [SPAM] tag as a warning, while the higher-scoring (9+ obvious spam) 
spams don't get delivered.



For my family I want to leave it as it is.


Fair enough.

Can I use two different bayes DBs? One for my family without training (just 
the auto train functions) and one for me that is trained?


...that I don't know. Others may be able to comment.

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  USMC Rules of Gunfighting #4: If your shooting stance is good,
  you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
---
 8 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[Florian Lindner]

Am 26.06.2008 um 19:31 schrieb John Hardin:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:



Am 26.06.2008 um 18:26 schrieb John Hardin:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:
> Hello,
> I use (honestly: I plan) the following procedure to filter my  
spam using > SA:
> > All mails are piped through spamc. (emails for my family and  
me). > required_score is set to high value of 9 to avoid false  
postives. Mail > which is detected as spam is being deleted.
Refine that a bit. Leave the threshold at 5 so that suspicious  
messages get marked, but delete at a high level (e.g. 10+)


What should be done with marked messages?


If they are spam, the user can drop them into their spam training  
folder - the assumption is bayes doesn't recognize them well enough  
yet, but that isn't always the case.


If you want to minimize the number of weak-scores spams that your  
users have to see, and you are less sensitive to FPs (which your  
original proposal suggests) then you'd just delete at a lower score  
(e.g. 9+ or 8+).


Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to fiddle with the threshold as  
all the base rulesets are scored by the masscheck process with the  
assumption that 5 is "spammy".


Sorry, I don't understand this. What is difference between changing  
the threshold and deleting all spam messages or leave the threshold at  
5 and deleting mail with 9 points. Is the threshold changed anything  
else than: if sore > threshold: mark spam else: mark ham after all  
tests have been run?


> All SA filtering is done on the server side. On the client side  
> additional filtering is done by statistic filters of Apple Mail  
and > Thunderbird.
> > Now I want to train the server SA filter by moving the junk  
mails (whish > have slipped through SA) on the client into an IMAP  
folder. This is done > only with the mail I receive, not the one  
the rest of family receive.

Why not let others train? Just give each user training folders.


The rest of family is rather computer agnostic and I'm happy they  
get along with the Thunderbird filter well.


That's reasonable. In my experience what you'll see when you review  
the mailbox is a few false positives that you can copy to the user's  
ham training folder for them. They will generally just delete any  
spams unless you stress repeatedly that spams which leak thorough  
shold go into the spam training folder rather than the trash, and  
you may be able to tell the MUA's classifier to save to the spam  
training folder rather than deleting.


For my family I want to leave it as it is.

> Will this setup cause any problems? I ask because the bayes  
filter I > train with only my email is used for all email.
It's better if you train with all users' email. Note that *you*  
may actually be doing the training, but it's still their email.


Another option would be to completely disable the statistic filters  
for my family and leave this completely up to Thunderbird. I would  
be using another SA config with statistics. How to implement this?  
Is is sufficient to use "spamc -F nostat.cf" with "use_bayes 0" in  
the config file and just spamc for me? Are these two spamc  
invocations are seperated from eath other?


I'd recommend against that, personally. Bayes is very helpful even  
if you can't get your users to train it themselves.


Can I use two different bayes DBs? One for my family without training  
(just the auto train functions) and one for me that is trained?


spamc is invoked from the maildrop MDA. I can't change the system user  
I invoke spamc from but best would be two kind of spamc invocations  
that act like they were different users.


You might want to have Thunderbird move spams to the spam training  
folder as I suggested, that way bayes will be led by thunderbird and  
the classification at the server (which is where it should be) will  
get better.



Some tools that may help you set things up are available here:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/


It's very interesting but way too sophisticated for my situation  
and audience.


Most of it will be visible only to you. My wife and MiL don't worry  
about training and they get along well.


Then again, it also depends on how allergic to receiving _any_ spam  
your users are.


I want to optimize it primarily for me, it's working fine for my family.

Florian

Re: dsn from this maillist users :(

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 16:39, Jost Krieger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:02:18AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > By what method did you recieve that URL?
>> dsn bounce
> Could you send the whole DSN, please?

i deleted it, but see the openspf link more closely

its apache org that reject with spf, with is a damm good thing, so who is
jeft to make the bounce ? :-)


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[John Hardin]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:



Am 26.06.2008 um 18:26 schrieb John Hardin:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:

> Hello,
> I use (honestly: I plan) the following procedure to filter my spam using 
> SA:
> 
> All mails are piped through spamc. (emails for my family and me). 
> required_score is set to high value of 9 to avoid false postives. Mail 
> which is detected as spam is being deleted.


Refine that a bit. Leave the threshold at 5 so that suspicious messages get 
marked, but delete at a high level (e.g. 10+)


What should be done with marked messages?


If they are spam, the user can drop them into their spam training folder - 
the assumption is bayes doesn't recognize them well enough yet, but that 
isn't always the case.


If you want to minimize the number of weak-scores spams that your users 
have to see, and you are less sensitive to FPs (which your original 
proposal suggests) then you'd just delete at a lower score (e.g. 9+ or 
8+).


Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to fiddle with the threshold as all 
the base rulesets are scored by the masscheck process with the assumption 
that 5 is "spammy".


> All SA filtering is done on the server side. On the client side 
> additional filtering is done by statistic filters of Apple Mail and 
> Thunderbird.
> 
> Now I want to train the server SA filter by moving the junk mails (whish 
> have slipped through SA) on the client into an IMAP folder. This is done 
> only with the mail I receive, not the one the rest of family receive.


Why not let others train? Just give each user training folders.


The rest of family is rather computer agnostic and I'm happy they get along 
with the Thunderbird filter well.


That's reasonable. In my experience what you'll see when you review the 
mailbox is a few false positives that you can copy to the user's ham 
training folder for them. They will generally just delete any spams unless 
you stress repeatedly that spams which leak thorough shold go into the 
spam training folder rather than the trash, and you may be able to tell 
the MUA's classifier to save to the spam training folder rather than 
deleting.


> Will this setup cause any problems? I ask because the bayes filter I 
> train with only my email is used for all email.


It's better if you train with all users' email. Note that *you* may 
actually be doing the training, but it's still their email.


Another option would be to completely disable the statistic filters for my 
family and leave this completely up to Thunderbird. I would be using another 
SA config with statistics. How to implement this? Is is sufficient to use 
"spamc -F nostat.cf" with "use_bayes 0" in the config file and just spamc for 
me? Are these two spamc invocations are seperated from eath other?


I'd recommend against that, personally. Bayes is very helpful even if you 
can't get your users to train it themselves.


You might want to have Thunderbird move spams to the spam training folder 
as I suggested, that way bayes will be led by thunderbird and the 
classification at the server (which is where it should be) will get 
better.



Some tools that may help you set things up are available here:

 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/


It's very interesting but way too sophisticated for my situation and 
audience.


Most of it will be visible only to you. My wife and MiL don't worry 
about training and they get along well.


Then again, it also depends on how allergic to receiving _any_ spam your 
users are.


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Perfect Security and Absolute Safety are unattainable; beware
  those who would try to sell them to you, regardless of the cost,
  for they are trying to sell you your own slavery.
---
 8 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Re: 60_whitelist.cf

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Thanks for everyone's tips..

tips will stop from me when you cc me and post on maillist

> Stupid question:

there is only stupid answers

> what is the difference between whitelist_auth and def_whitelist_auth?

2 diff scores


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[Florian Lindner]

Am 26.06.2008 um 18:26 schrieb John Hardin:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:


Hello,
I use (honestly: I plan) the following procedure to filter my spam  
using SA:


All mails are piped through spamc. (emails for my family and me).  
required_score is set to high value of 9 to avoid false postives.  
Mail which is detected as spam is being deleted.


Refine that a bit. Leave the threshold at 5 so that suspicious  
messages get marked, but delete at a high level (e.g. 10+)


What should be done with marked messages?

All SA filtering is done on the server side. On the client side  
additional filtering is done by statistic filters of Apple Mail and  
Thunderbird.


Now I want to train the server SA filter by moving the junk mails  
(whish have slipped through SA) on the client into an IMAP folder.  
This is done only with the mail I receive, not the one the rest of  
family receive.


Why not let others train? Just give each user training folders.


The rest of family is rather computer agnostic and I'm happy they get  
along with the Thunderbird filter well.


Will this setup cause any problems? I ask because the bayes filter  
I train with only my email is used for all email.


It's better if you train with all users' email. Note that *you* may  
actually be doing the training, but it's still their email.


Another option would be to completely disable the statistic filters  
for my family and leave this completely up to Thunderbird. I would be  
using another SA config with statistics. How to implement this? Is is  
sufficient to use "spamc -F nostat.cf" with "use_bayes 0" in the  
config file and just spamc for me? Are these two spamc invocations are  
seperated from eath other?






Some tools that may help you set things up are available here:

 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/


It's very interesting but way too sophisticated for my situation and  
audience.


Hooking up spamc via procmail, special handling at a given score,  
and training from per-user spam and ham boxes. The only difference  
between what you're suggesting and what I'm doing today is that I  
have two mail servers, one at a hosted site and one at home (fed by  
fetchmail from the hosted server), so I have some extra glue moving  
the training folders from the home server's IMAP folders back out to  
the hosted server where SA runs. All my family have training  
folders, but I pretty much do all the training classification  
whenever I'm doing "administrative stuff" to their systems.



Regards,

Florian

Re: freemail plugin

[Kelson]

Benny Pedersen wrote:

can you change it to list reverse, so freemail domains is all other then
what is not freemail domain ?

this is imho more simple to knwo where to pay for email then to know with
domains is free :-)


So... every time someone registers a new domain name for their start-up 
company, we need to add it to the list because it isn't a free email 
service?


I don't think that's going to save much effort.

--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications 

Re: Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 17:13, ram wrote:

> How do I enforce SA to wait for results negative short circuited rules
> of higher priority  before shorcicuiting mail as spam due to positive
> ones

make priority positive not negative, default all have 0 to start with, and
10 would be tested before 0 :-)


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: diasble for virtual domain

[Benny Pedersen]

On Thu, June 26, 2008 16:24, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> I use amavisd-new, so for me it is as
> simple as removing the domain from @local_domains_maps
> in /etc/amavisd/amavisd.conf

spamassassin is still running spamtest with that, if one really like to
destingt domains from each other make a policy table in mysql and add
policy pr domain, (can be done in amavisd.conf olso, i just lost how)

what you did just disables the spam headers, not the scanning

add users in that table with @domain and setup policy table as domain likes

i hope mailzu would have this sooner or later :-)


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: 60_whitelist.cf

[spamassassin]

Thanks for everyone's tips.. Stupid question: what is the difference 
between whitelist_auth and def_whitelist_auth?



On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Benny Pedersen wrote:



On Mon, June 23, 2008 08:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] bsaa42453.tk.mesh.ad.jp


def_whitelist_auth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_auth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dont use both since its 2 diff scores, and only use the one that are needed

here is the spf
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=wii.com&submit=Go%21

perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF

i use whitelist_auth since if wii later changes to dkim or other supported
auths in spamassassin you dont need to change the whitelist


Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

Re: Train and use bayes on different adresses

[John Hardin]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Florian Lindner wrote:


Hello,
I use (honestly: I plan) the following procedure to filter my spam using SA:

All mails are piped through spamc. (emails for my family and me). 
required_score is set to high value of 9 to avoid false postives. Mail which 
is detected as spam is being deleted.


Refine that a bit. Leave the threshold at 5 so that suspicious messages 
get marked, but delete at a high level (e.g. 10+)


All SA filtering is done on the server side. On the client side 
additional filtering is done by statistic filters of Apple Mail and 
Thunderbird.


Now I want to train the server SA filter by moving the junk mails (whish 
have slipped through SA) on the client into an IMAP folder. This is done 
only with the mail I receive, not the one the rest of family receive.


Why not let others train? Just give each user training folders.

Will this setup cause any problems? I ask because the bayes filter I 
train with only my email is used for all email.


It's better if you train with all users' email. Note that *you* may 
actually be doing the training, but it's still their email.


Some tools that may help you set things up are available here:

  http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/

Hooking up spamc via procmail, special handling at a given score, and 
training from per-user spam and ham boxes. The only difference between 
what you're suggesting and what I'm doing today is that I have two mail 
servers, one at a hosted site and one at home (fed by fetchmail from the 
hosted server), so I have some extra glue moving the training folders from 
the home server's IMAP folders back out to the hosted server where SA 
runs. All my family have training folders, but I pretty much do all the 
training classification whenever I'm doing "administrative stuff" to their 
systems.


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Users mistake widespread adoption of Microsoft Office as the
  development of a standard document format.
---
 8 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Re: dsn from this maillist users :(

[Jost Krieger]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:02:18AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
> 
> > By what method did you recieve that URL?
> 
> dsn bounce

Could you send the whole DSN, please?

My guess is someone's mail setup on this list is re-routing mails by Header
"To:" and re-posting received messages. Perhaps these duplicates would
be caught later, but due to SPF, they are refused earlier.

Especially interesting is which server is sending the DSNs.

Jost
-- 
| Helft Spam ausrotten!HTML in Mail ist unhöflich. |
| Postmaster, JAPH, manchmal Wahrsager   am RZ der RUB |
| Wahre Worte sind nicht gefällig, gefällige Worte sind nicht wahr.|
|  Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Error in PerMsgStatus.pm

[Björn Gernert]

Hi to all,

I have just set up a new server with postfix and spamassassin.
Spamassassin works fine but when I look at my mail.log I can see lots of
errors.
For every mail spamassassin scans, I get the message:

--
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 276) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 276) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 277) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 277) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 278) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 278) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 279) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 279) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 280) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 280) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 281) line 10, near "} 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  (Missing operator before  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]:  1?) 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: rules: failed to run header tests,
skipping some: syntax error at (eval 281) line 11, near "; 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: }" 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2669,  line
60. 
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER last message repeated 2 times
Jun 26 16:55:37 MY-SERVER spamd[29634]: Number found where operator expected
at (eval 282) line 10, near "} 
Jun 2

Train and use bayes on different adresses

[Florian Lindner]

Hello,
I use (honestly: I plan) the following procedure to filter my spam  
using SA:


All mails are piped through spamc. (emails for my family and me).  
required_score is set to high value of 9 to avoid false postives. Mail  
which is detected as spam is being deleted.


All SA filtering is done on the server side. On the client side  
additional filtering is done by statistic filters of Apple Mail and  
Thunderbird.


Now I want to train the server SA filter by moving the junk mails  
(whish have slipped through SA) on the client into an IMAP folder.  
This is done only with the mail I receive, not the one the rest of  
family receive.


Will this setup cause any problems? I ask because the bayes filter I  
train with only my email is used for all email.


Thanks,

Florian

Short circuit priority doesnt seem to work

[ram]

Hi 

In my local.cf I have 

--
score USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -100

priority USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -1000
priority RCVD_IN_XBL -800


shortcircuit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST on
shortcircuit RCVD_IN_XBL spam
--



So I expect RCVD_IN_XBL to be evaluated after USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST ,
but this does not happen 
If a mail hits RCVD_IN_XBL it is immediately marked spam even if it were
to hit USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST 
I disable short circuit plugin and it works fine 


How do I enforce SA to wait for results negative short circuited rules
of higher priority  before shorcicuiting mail as spam due to positive
ones


Thanks
Ram

Re: diasble for virtual domain

[McDonald, Dan]

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 07:13 -0700, raulbe wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Is there a way to disable Spam Assassin for just one virtual domain?
> Im on a centos 4.x box 

Yes.

Oh, your real question was "how do I"  Well, that depends on how you
have integrated spamassassin.  I use amavisd-new, so for me it is as
simple as removing the domain from @local_domains_maps
in /etc/amavisd/amavisd.conf
-- 
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX
Austin Energy
http://www.austinenergy.com



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

diasble for virtual domain

[raulbe]

Hi all,

Is there a way to disable Spam Assassin for just one virtual domain?
Im on a centos 4.x box 
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/diasble-for-virtual-domain-tp18134873p18134873.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: auto-whitelist file location in 3.2.4

[Skip Morrow]

> That option wasn't removed from SA.. it was removed from the main conf
> docs, as all of the AWL is now a plugin. That option is documented in the
> docs for the AWL plugin, which is where it really belongs. (if the option
> isn't valid without the plugin, then it in theory shouldn't be in the main
> Conf manpage..)
>
>
>
> See
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL
> .html
>
>
>
I see, and got it working.  Next question:  How would I set it up so that
I could have a separate whitelist for each user (I only have four users)? 
Again, I call spamassassin from procmail, and each user has its own
procmailrc, so I can easily hardcode in the command as an argument to
spamassassin.  But I haven't seen a way yet to tell spamassassin to look
in a particular place for the .cf files for the plugins.  On bluehost,
somehow spamassassin knows to look in the ~/.spamassassin folder for the
*.cf files.  Worst case I write a rule to copy the right .cf file into
place depending on which procmailrc is executing (and placing in some file
locks of course), but I'd hate to kludge that into place.

Re: Is DCC working?

[Matt Kettler]

Florian Lindner wrote:

Hello,
I have installed DCC and I think it should be working:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ spamassassin -D < junk 2>&1 | grep -i DCC
[7227] dbg: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_dcc.cf
[7227] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC from @INC
[7227] dbg: dcc: network tests on, registering DCC
[7227] dbg: plugin: registered 
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC=HASH(0xa33662c)

[7227] dbg: dcc: dccifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found
[7227] dbg: util: executable for dccproc was found at /usr/bin/dccproc
[7227] dbg: dcc: dccproc is available: /usr/bin/dccproc
[7227] dbg: dcc: opening pipe: /usr/bin/dccproc -H -x 0 < 
/tmp/.spamassassin7227H4OvN2tmp
[7227] dbg: dcc: got response: X-DCC-CTc-dcc1-Metrics: 
osiris.centershock.net 1030; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3


in my filter I'm invoking spamassassin with spamc.

None of the 76 junk messages I filtered with spamc since I activared 
DCC contains an information about the DCC_CHECK test. (grep DCC_CHECK *)


I'm using Debian etch with SA 3.1.7. 


Any chance you're launching spamd with the -L or -C flags?

Re: Is DCC working?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 26.06.08 13:35, Florian Lindner wrote:
> I have installed DCC and I think it should be working:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ spamassassin -D < junk 2>&1 | grep -i DCC
> [7227] dbg: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_dcc.cf
> [7227] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC from @INC
> [7227] dbg: dcc: network tests on, registering DCC
> [7227] dbg: plugin: registered  
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC=HASH(0xa33662c)
> [7227] dbg: dcc: dccifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found
> [7227] dbg: util: executable for dccproc was found at /usr/bin/dccproc
> [7227] dbg: dcc: dccproc is available: /usr/bin/dccproc
> [7227] dbg: dcc: opening pipe: /usr/bin/dccproc -H -x 0 < / 
> tmp/.spamassassin7227H4OvN2tmp
> [7227] dbg: dcc: got response: X-DCC-CTc-dcc1-Metrics:  
> osiris.centershock.net 1030; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3
> 
> in my filter I'm invoking spamassassin with spamc.
> 
> None of the 76 junk messages I filtered with spamc since I activared  
> DCC contains an information about the DCC_CHECK test. (grep DCC_CHECK *)

well, seems it does not hit that often:

grep -F 'spamd: result:' /var/log/local3.1 | wc -l
1182

grep -F 'DCC' /var/log/local3.1 | wc -l
35

grep -F 'spamd: result: Y' /var/log/local3.1 | wc -l
45

grep -F 'spamd: result: Y' /var/log/local3.1 | grep -F DCC | wc -l
32

(my agressive blacklists prevent much spam from reaching SA, if I removed
them, result may be much different)

> I'm using Debian etch with SA 3.1.7.

use 3.2.3 from volatile archive. And remember to call sa-update (and restart
spamassassin) periodically

-- 
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 reklamnu postu.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. 

Is DCC working?

[Florian Lindner]

Hello,
I have installed DCC and I think it should be working:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ spamassassin -D < junk 2>&1 | grep -i DCC
[7227] dbg: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_dcc.cf
[7227] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC from @INC
[7227] dbg: dcc: network tests on, registering DCC
[7227] dbg: plugin: registered  
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC=HASH(0xa33662c)

[7227] dbg: dcc: dccifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found
[7227] dbg: util: executable for dccproc was found at /usr/bin/dccproc
[7227] dbg: dcc: dccproc is available: /usr/bin/dccproc
[7227] dbg: dcc: opening pipe: /usr/bin/dccproc -H -x 0 < / 
tmp/.spamassassin7227H4OvN2tmp
[7227] dbg: dcc: got response: X-DCC-CTc-dcc1-Metrics:  
osiris.centershock.net 1030; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3


in my filter I'm invoking spamassassin with spamc.

None of the 76 junk messages I filtered with spamc since I activared  
DCC contains an information about the DCC_CHECK test. (grep DCC_CHECK *)


I'm using Debian etch with SA 3.1.7.

Thanks,

Florian

Re: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >On Fredag, 20/6 2008, 10:04, Henrik K wrote:
> >  
> >>On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:12:45AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >>
> >>>That is correct, SPF checks are applied to the first untrusted host.
> >>>  
> >>Matt, you should know better. ;) It's first _external_ host.
> >>
> >
> >and is most of the time olso first untrusted ? :)
> >
> >both is imho correct

On 25.06.08 20:54, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Generally yes, although there are some odd cases where these differ 

odd? :) they are two settings just so they could differ (so we could trust
some host while not taking them as internal).

> (only happens when you set it this way manually for various not-typical 
> network reasons, like those who accept mail from authenticated users on 
> dialup IPs.).

Not only. We trust our dialup users until we'll force them to SMTP AUTH.

But we may trust some other mailservers (freemails) that relay mail, so we
won't check for blacklists them, but machines they are relaying from
(which may be bad if they whitelisted their dialups, but that's different
story)


-- 
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 reklamnu postu.
Windows 2000: 640 MB ought to be enough for anybody

Re: Spam volumes down since last week

[Michael Monnerie]

On Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 ram wrote:
> Since Last week spams are at 50% of what
> they used to be last month. Is this what you all are seeing

We've had a high at beginnin of June, and now we're very low in spam 
volume. Maybe "they" prepare a new burst for the holidays? Or they know 
spamming in July/August isn't all that helpful and keep their Viagra in 
stock for September?

mfg zmi
-- 
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc-  http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31  .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38  500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net   Key-ID: 1C1209B4


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.