On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:11:20AM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I'd rather continue to do the helo checks in filter_helo()... it keeps the
> code more manageable.
Of course, nothing is stopping you from adding a
my_filter_helo($ip, $hostname, $helo)
as the first line of your filter_sender.
David,
> I think greylisting is nearing the end of its useful life. I'm
> noticing a new kind of ratware that retries every 5 minutes
> like clockwork, mutating message bodies. Our CanIt software tempfails
> mail until it's approved by a human, and this mechanism has
> the side-effect of illumi
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> At the moment that the HELO is sent... Has a queue-id even been
> assigned?
Nope.
> If not, then how do you figure out which command file
> to read?
You can't.
So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is essentially
useless.
Regards,
David.
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:20 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is essentially
> useless.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
Beat that dead horse, David!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_
On 19 Apr 2006 at 8:47, Adam Lanier wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:20 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> > So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is
> > essentially
> > useless.
> >
>
> Beat that dead horse, David!
To be honest, because of the fact that you can't trul
I'm running BitDefender and ClamAV virus scanners through MIMEDefang.
All of a sudden BitDefender started consuming a huge amount of CPU. My load
average shot up from under 1 to between 6 and 15.
This happened on two servers simultaneously.
I disabled BitDefender (delete $Features{"Virus:BDC"}
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
> I'm running BitDefender and ClamAV virus scanners through MIMEDefang.
>
> All of a sudden BitDefender started consuming a huge amount of CPU.
> My load average shot up from under 1 to between 6 and 15.
>
> This happened on two servers simultaneously.
>
> I disabled B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I'm running BitDefender and ClamAV virus scanners through MIMEDefang.
All of a sudden BitDefender started consuming a huge amount of CPU. My load
average shot up from under 1 to between 6 and 15.
Hi Matthew,
can you 'reproduce' this behavior ?
I've seen an even
So far in my tests, this OCR plugin looks like it's working ok. I rounded
up the needed prereqs (that was a bit of a chore, but everything compiled
cleanly), and changed the package definition as indicated in Martin's post
(be sure to run "spamassassin -D --lint"). So far I've seen several hits
f
I've been thinking about this issue some more, and was
wondering...
Would it be easier to have to sendmail instances, one that
listens on 465 for authenticated email only, and then requeues
it locally by passing it onto the "primary" instance of sendmail,
which would apply mimedefang+spamassassin
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Would it be easier to have to sendmail instances, one that
> listens on 465 for authenticated email only
587 would be the canonical port, but yes...
> and then requeues it locally by passing it onto the "primary"
> instance of sendmail, which would apply mimedefang+spa
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:34:19PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> But since I'm submitting on port 465 with authentication, and
> not on port 25... it doesn't make sense to make certain blanket
> tests that would be applied to all "outside" mail.
What I do in this case is make some tests optio
On 14 Apr 2006 at 18:42, Martin Blapp wrote:
> This is just a little advertisement for my plugin which is now
> in a usable state and works very well.
>
> Anyone interested should keep an eye on it - it really helps
> with the image only spam we get today. But problably the spammers
> will soon c
On 10 Apr 2006 at 15:26, Cormack, Ken wrote:
description of stock image spam
> Have been seeing a number of these lately here, and I'm wondering if
> anyone has ideas how best to go about blocking some of these things.
What version of SpamAssassin are you running? If it's 3.1.1, you
might tr
Nels Lindquist wrote:
> As far as spammers obfuscating their images, couldn't that be worked
> around by tying OCR into the bayesian system?
I think the original idea was to obfuscate the images so people could
read the text, but OCR tools wouldn't be able to.
> Then obfuscation wouldn't matter
15 matches
Mail list logo
