On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Danny Jensen wrote:
> 2.3 MANGLED_BODY BODY: mangled body
> 2.3 MANGLED_FROM BODY: mangled from
> 2.3 MANGLED_PURCHS BODY: mangled purchase(s)
> 2.3 MANGLED_ACCNT BODY: mangled account(s)
> 2.3 MANGLED_WEIGHT BODY: mangled wei
Need to score .html attachments.
Problem:
Some of our customer send us Purchase Orders as .html attachments. I
have spamassassin .cf rule sets that assign a very negative score for
any text that looks like a purchase order but these .cf rules don't work
on mail with like:
=20
Your files are attac
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Rolf wrote:
> what is the security risk with message/partial?
Search the list archives.
Basically, you can split a virus into parts, none of which will trigger
a signature-based scan. Unless the virus-scanner on the server
reassembles the parts, it can't properly scan for vi
hello
In the default filter it rejects with a bounce msg and a discard, the
$type message/partial.
This has happened on a legitimate (ie sender and recipient are known
and have valid reasons for sending the mail) message today. Its the
first time in about a year of using MD that I've seen this.
Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I decided to attack it from the other end, and found something
> interesting: I ran lsof, looking for files opened by the defang user,
> and once I filtered out all the /lib/ and /bin/ results, what remained
> were the MD socket, some pipes, connections to /de
Kenneth Porter wrote:
I suppose he could be stress-testing Thunderbird, but at that volume I'd
be inclined to switch all filtering server-side (ie. with procmail).
Exactly. There's no sense in passing along that volume of junk to the
client, whether each message is 77 KB of virus or 2 KB of "Som
Steffen Kaiser wrote:
Suppose the users are not supposed to have shell account on the server
(just POP and IMAP), can you lock down procmail to keep within the
user's home directory or at least to run some particular, selected
programs only?
Sendmail comes with smrsh, the SendMail Restricted SHe
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:54:14 +0100 (CET), Martin Blapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We get more and more spams which are big enough to be
> skipped in spamassassin. I'm thinking now about adding
> another spamassassin check but only with the header as
> argument, so bad relays etc.
8 matches
Mail list logo
