Re: [Announce] SA-Plugins: RedisAWL, RuleTimingRedis

2016-02-05 Thread Benning, Markus 

On 2016-02-04 22:42, Skeffling wrote:
Sorry to reply to an old thread, but is it possible for the the 
RedisAWL
plugin to specify a redis password too? (I'm looking to use TxRep with 
a

redis backend...)


Just released version 1.001:

commit 4f7138e4823379f7728bcca005611d2a6640cf93
Author: Markus Benning 
Date:   Fri Feb 5 15:11:45 2016 +0100

Additional redis connection parameters

The followin configuration parameters have been added:

  * auto_whitelist_redis_password
  * auto_whitelist_redis_database
  * auto_whitelist_redis_debug

- Markus


--
https://markusbenning.de/

Re: [Announce] SA-Plugins: RedisAWL, RuleTimingRedis

2016-02-05 Thread Henrik K 
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 03:17:21PM +0100, Benning, Markus wrote:
> On 2016-02-04 22:42, Skeffling wrote:
> >Sorry to reply to an old thread, but is it possible for the the
> >RedisAWL
> >plugin to specify a redis password too? (I'm looking to use TxRep
> >with a
> >redis backend...)
> 
> Just released version 1.001:
> 
> commit 4f7138e4823379f7728bcca005611d2a6640cf93
> Author: Markus Benning 
> Date:   Fri Feb 5 15:11:45 2016 +0100
> 
> Additional redis connection parameters
> 
> The followin configuration parameters have been added:
> 
>   * auto_whitelist_redis_password
>   * auto_whitelist_redis_database
>   * auto_whitelist_redis_debug

You should start using the bundled Mail/SpamAssassin/Util/TinyRedis.pm
instead of cpan Redis module..

Re: how to fix this issue-spam

2016-02-05 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas 

On 04.02.16 09:30, Alan Hodgson wrote:

SPF strict outright breaks mail forwarding, unless the forwarder rewrites the
envelope sender.


SPF does NOT break mail forwarding (and is not obsolete, as you claim in
later mail)

Forwarding without rewriting envelope sender is what's broken there.
It causes issues like misdirected bounces to the originator, not to the
forwarder. 


DKIM + DMARC is a much better compromise. It allows properly-signed mail
forwarded intact to still pass DMARC checks.


DKIM required DATA phase to complete, while SPF can be rejected prior it.

DKIM has its issues, related to charater set conversion that may be
ligitimately done by servers. 
--

Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; 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.
Linux - It's now safe to turn on your computer.
Linux - Teraz mozete pocitac bez obav zapnut.

Re: how to fix this issue-spam

2016-02-05 Thread David Jones 

>>SPF strict outright breaks mail forwarding, unless the forwarder rewrites the
>>envelope sender.

>SPF does NOT break mail forwarding (and is not obsolete, as you claim in
>later mail)

Until most MTAs support SRS easily and possibly by default, SPF is going
to be broken by forwarding.  You are correct that it's technically not a problem
with SPF but nevertheless it's a reality today on nearly all MTAs and
mail platforms.