Michael W. Cocke wrote:
Just FYI, AOL is doing reverse DNS and won't accept incoming email if
they don't approve of the sending IP address.. as in, they won't
accept messages from my domain because I use dyndns and not a static
IP.
It is probably not that you don't have reverse DNS. It is
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/0034210mode=nestedtid=126tid=95tid=98tid=99
Verisign today just added wildcard A records pointing to 64.94.110.11 to the
.com and .net zones.
How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we
doing about this?
Kristian
Hi,
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:16:02 -0700 ian douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey folks.
Left the list for a while but re-subscribed 'cause I have a question to ask:
I have MailScanner running SA for me on 2 different servers and got everything
working VERY well about two months ago.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:23:46 -0400 Michael W. Cocke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:39:18 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 08:13, Michael W. Cocke wrote:
[snip]
Pardon me while I expose my ignorance. What's a smarthost, and given
me by which provider? All I
How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we
doing about this?
Well, for one thing ORBS is magically alive again: :(
--SNIP--
RCVD_IN_ORBS (0.1 points) RBL: Received via a relay in orbs.dorkslayers.com
[RBL check: found
Hi folks,
A lot of spammer's websites in body are like these:
Donat43
Discountrate2
Account45
...
.com/.net/.biz ... (this is indifferent).
Wich type of URI rule could I use to filter these pornsite/commsite ?
Have you got any suggestion? Examples?
Thanks for all
Best Regards
Andrea
At least I think so. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll slink into the
corner.
According to SlashDot, Verisign is now as of 9/15 evening wildcarding
all .com and .net domains that aren't registered to go to a
advertising page!
Now, admittedly that doesn't affect other TLDs. And if the
advertising page
We have the same cofiguration on our mail server now and today we decided to
reconfigure all to qmail-vpopmail-sa-amavis-[something], because amavis and sa are
scripts, that can work together. Nowadays it is not available amavis+sa+qmail, so we
had to rewrite the amavis script for using with
how about a DNS_FOR_FROM_IS_SITEFINDER
as they all point to the same ip address you have just to check for
that one.
christof
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Michael Bell wrote:
At least I think so. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll slink into the
corner.
According to SlashDot, Verisign is now as of 9/15
Kristian Koehntopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we doing
about this?
It has a very negative effect on some tests, particularly
NO_DNS_FOR_FROM which caught roughly 2% of spam with a 99.9% accuracy
rate (those are my real-time numbers
# Domain name starts with number(s)
uri MY_DOMAIN_STARTS_NUMS
/[.\/@]+\d+[a-zA-Z\-]+[a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.(com|net|biz|info)/i
describe MY_DOMAIN_STARTS_NUMS Domain name starts with numbers
score MY_DOMAIN_STARTS_NUMS0.5
# Domain name ends with number(s)
uri MY_DOMAIN_ENDS_NUMS
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:07:21 -0500, you wrote:
[much snippage]
Your options are a) smarthost, or b) get a static allocation with proper
DNS (forward and reverse) and current domain and SWIP contact info. Make
sure your mail server sends a FQDN as its HELO greeting and that your
abuse,
Hi
# Domain name starts with number(s)
...
# Domain name ends with number(s)
...
And domain name with number(s) like:
Getit4less
Hotxxxmail4u
...??
Thank you very much
Andrea
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to
Hi folks,
I'm thinking on
uri MY_SPAM_HOST
/http:\/\/(click|clix|track|adv)\d*\.\w+/i
describe MY_SPAM_HOST URL points to a server named click
score MY_SPAM_HOST 4.0
And if I've spam from evoclick.dom, or evoclix?
Mmm ... It's usefull if I add the word fuck in the rule,
Hello,
I just installed 2.60rc5 on cygwin (perl 5.6.1).
When I start spamd I receive an error:
$ spamd -d
Use of uninitialized value in scalar assignment at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm line 202.
It appears that spamd is still running, as I am able to use the
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:07:21 -0500, you wrote:
[much snippage]
Your options are a) smarthost, or b) get a static allocation with proper
DNS (forward and reverse) and current domain and SWIP contact info. Make
sure your mail server sends a FQDN as its HELO greeting and that your
abuse,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:14:07PM +0200, Andrea Riela wrote:
Hi
# Domain name starts with number(s)
...
# Domain name ends with number(s)
...
And domain name with number(s) like:
Getit4less
Hotxxxmail4u
...??
Be aware that scoring mail-IDs this way may cause false positives, and
This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power.
Forget about the negative consequences. They are simply abusing their
control over these TLDs to direct users who make typos to their site.
Anyone know appropriate VeriSign, ICANN, or other e-mail addresses that we
can express our
Is there a way with SA to generate a report every day (and email to
admin - me) with what spam it stopped? I wasn't sure if SA had an
option or if I had to use third party software.
Cheers,
Jenn
---
This sf.net email is sponsored
Hi, just a little thing:
Since I've upgraded to SA-2.60-RC4, I have this messages coming to my
maillog:
Sep 16 10:27:21 nahuel spamd[19247]: DCC - check failed: Insecure directory
in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Dns.pm line
Kristian Koehntopp wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:09:31 +0200:
Verisign today just added wildcard A records pointing to 64.94.110.11 to the
.com and .net zones.
it's already been that way for .tv and .cc domains, but most people didn't
notice.
How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it
Michael W. Cocke wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:23:46 -0400:
My ISP might run an
sm
You sure have access to it, not specifically to it, but there is
one you can use, rest assured, you just need to ask them or read the
documents they sent you.
If anyone using AOL needs to hear from me
It's
That sounds like the best idea so far. Verisign = teh suxor
I suppose it is way too late to get it into 2.60.
I missed this article yesterday. Thanks for the info as well.
-Original Message-
From: Christof Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:28 AM
Michael W. Cocke wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:13:25 -0400:
Pardon me while I expose my ignorance. What's a smarthost, and given
me by which provider? All I get from my so-called ISP is a wire with
an IP address, or do you mean dyndns?
They also provide you with an SMTP server you can use
--On 09/15/03 18:23:46 -0400 Michael W. Cocke wrote:
If anyone using AOL needs to hear from me, I'll tell them to complain
to whatever AOL genius decided that this would be a good anti-spam
measure.
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide spam filters at
Interesting Link:
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Hi,
I have a problem with increasing memory usage of SpamAssassin on windows
(spamc/spamd). I created a stand alone test program to check if the
increasing memory is a problem of communication code or SA. The program
tests the sample-spam.txt file using a loop of 1000 times.
Result (Win2k SP4;
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power.
Forget about the negative consequences. They are simply abusing their
control over these TLDs to direct users who make typos to their site.
Anyone know appropriate VeriSign, ICANN, or other e-mail
Well I've been swamped with other projects, and SA has been rocking. I'm
starting to look at my spams again and I have a goofy question for everyone
with a corpus. Can anyone give me stats on how many spam/ham have colors in
the domain name?
example: bluemountain.com, bluebottle.com,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:47:13AM -0400, Jennifer Fountain wrote:
Is there a way with SA to generate a report every day (and email to
admin - me) with what spam it stopped? I wasn't sure if SA had an
option or if I had to use third party software.
Since SA doesn't stop any mails from being
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:22:35PM +0200, Andrea Riela wrote:
I'm thinking on
uri MY_SPAM_HOST
/http:\/\/(click|clix|track|adv)\d*\.\w+/i
describe MY_SPAM_HOST URL points to a server named click
score MY_SPAM_HOST 4.0
And if I've spam from evoclick.dom, or evoclix?
With all the talk about Osirusoft, I didn't even know that orbs was dead!
thanks.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
- Original Message -
From: Bill Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:56 PM
- Original Message -
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone knows a workaround for sendmail, so that it knows that any
domain
pointing to 64.94.110.11 isn't valid?
I
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 13:03, Rich Puhek wrote:
On a side note, the tactic appears to have backfired... 64.94.110.11
appears to be unpingable, and If I try typing a made-up domain into a
browser, the page times out. Perhaps Verisign is suffering the /. effect?
Several ISPs have null-routed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power.
Forget about the negative consequences. They are simply abusing their
control over these TLDs to direct users who make typos to their site.
Anyone know appropriate VeriSign, ICANN, or other e-mail addresses
Lance A. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 13:03, Rich Puhek wrote:
On a side note, the tactic appears to have backfired... 64.94.110.11
appears to be unpingable, and If I try typing a made-up domain into a
browser, the page times out. Perhaps Verisign is suffering the /. effect?
Several
SA is flagging 100% of the incoming email with the RCVD_IN_ORBS score. Even
mail from our internal network. None of the ip addresses are listed in
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=3.0
tests=RCVD_IN_ORBS
version=2.55
Has the orbs.dorkslayers.com gone the way of Osirusoft?
Thanks,
Gary
--On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:03 PM -0500 Rich Puhek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a side note, the tactic appears to have backfired... 64.94.110.11
appears to be unpingable, and If I try typing a made-up domain into a
browser, the page times out. Perhaps Verisign is suffering the /.
CW == Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:46:18PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
They need to follow the PAL/GPL. A commercial version is perfectly
fine, assuming they've made changes such that we're a component.
CW They still have to provide the source code
On Friday, September 12, 2003 @ 11:33:14 AM [-0700], Vivek Khera wrote:
MT == Matt Thoene [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MT Hi...just upgraded from rc3 to rc4 and am now seeing this in the logs...
MT razor2 check skipped: Bad file descriptor Insecure dependency in
MT connect while running setuid
All interested parties should read:
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as OK, we'll change an aspect or
two of how the new system works.
Chris
---
This sf.net email is sponsored
RD == Rich Duzenbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RD It looks as though the same trademark atty Joseph G Adams has
RD attempted to register it for deersoft and for network associates.
Maybe because NA bought Deersoft?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek
ML == Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML I followed the instuructions below to patch Razor2's taint problem.
ML The Config.pm patch worked perfectly, but the Core.pm patch failed at
ML hunk 1. Is this an SA issue, or a Razor issue..(i.e. patch created
ML by Razor folks or SA folks)?
Today, for the first time, spamassassin's bayesian filter decided its own
cron job output wasn't spam.
I've been running
0 3 * * * /home/darxus/sausr/local/bin/sa-learn --rebuild
since 8/26, and every day it was ranked spam probability is 90 to 99%.
I was about to give up on spamassassin and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just installed rc5, but I seem to be missing the Razor2.patchfile.
Where is it located?
Is this different then the patchfile posted to the list?
I tried applying the ptachfile posted to the list but it fails at
chunk 1 on the Core.pm patch.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:43:14PM -0400, Gary Carr wrote:
SA is flagging 100% of the incoming email with the RCVD_IN_ORBS score. Even
mail from our internal network. None of the ip addresses are listed in
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=3.0
tests=RCVD_IN_ORBS
version=2.55
Has
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 11:09:25 AM [-0700], Covington, Chris wrote:
All interested parties should read:
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as OK, we'll change an aspect or
two of how the new system works.
Chris
Well, it
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:19:37 +1100
-tom
-Original Message-
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:42:22PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure ICANN has already gotten an earful. I, for one, and going to
leave ICANN alone so that they can concentrate on a course of action
against Verisign.
They have already responded in a letter to VeriSign:
To
Posted in another newgroup area:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As has been pointed out on the NANOG mailing list, many recent
versions of SpamAssassin still check for DNSBLs on dorkslayers.com.
While dorkslayers.com is still a registered domain name, it doesn't
have a name server and therefore
I'm sure ICANN has already gotten an earful. I, for one, and going to
leave ICANN alone so that they can concentrate on a course of action
against Verisign.
They have already responded in a letter to VeriSign:
To restore the data integrity and predictability of the DNS
infrastructure, the
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:25:07PM -0500, Mike Loiterman wrote:
Just installed rc5, but I seem to be missing the Razor2.patchfile.
Where is it located?
grrr It's in CVS, but it wasn't added to the MANIFEST file so it
wasn't put in the tarball. :( I just fixed it.
The patch is the same as
It is pretty obvious a lot of people assume things about the
SA licence but haven't actually read it or tried to
understand it... Same goes for a lot of Open Source projects,
it seems.
Many companies just assume that the authors of an open source project cannot
afford to sue and just do
-Original Message-
From: J. S. Townsley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note the date on that first letter.
--JST
* Covington, Chris [Tue, 16 Sep 2003]
From: Covington, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly
All interested parties should
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 18:43, Gary Carr wrote:
SA is flagging 100% of the incoming email with the RCVD_IN_ORBS score. Even
mail from our internal network. None of the ip addresses are listed in
[...]
Has the orbs.dorkslayers.com gone the way of Osirusoft?
dorkslayers has been dead as a doornail
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:21:47PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
Why? Do they own the copyrights to SA? If not, then there's not much
they can do about it.
I don't think we need to go down this path... At the moment, copyright
of the individual code bits hasn't been assigned anywhere officially.
I wanted to setup an RHSBL test that would simply query my local DNS server
for a host A record. Here is what I attempted to do, however, this does
not work:
header RCVD_IN_VERISCAM eval:check_rbl_from_host('veriscam', '.',
'64.94.110.11')
describe RCVD_IN_VERISCAMVERISCAM: bogus
I think the linked IAB missive is related to this:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2003-01/msg00023.html
WTF is Verisign doing anyway? Deciding the Internet is their own private toy? And
everyone in the world is using it at their (verisign's) whim?
-tom
-Original Message-
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Tom Meunier wrote:
WTF is Verisign doing anyway? Deciding the Internet is their own
private toy?
Making a grab for cash:
Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that VeriSign could create
revenue of $1m per day for itself and partners if it could convert
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:57:34 -0400 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Russell Premont
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I run the following
sa-learn --spam --dir /spamassassin/Maildir/cur
I get the following error
Failed to create default user preference file
/spamassassin/.spamassassin/user_prefs
I
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all the talk about Osirusoft, I didn't even know that orbs was dead!
Dorkslayers died a death some months ago, after the nameservers were hit
by over 6500 machines in 17 seconds in May, each making multiple queries
(and that was the
I am using 2.60rc2 rc3 rc5 and it works in all these versions. In 2.55
it does not work or was not implemented.
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
Razvan Cosma wrote:
Hello,
I have seen this option mentioned several places on the web (but not
in the perldoc
Hi, I need to know how-to setup SA to delete spam on the server side not the
client side
-
Bill Banks Wachusett Programming
http://www.ourweb.net508-829-2005
--
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Matt Thoene wrote:
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 11:09:25 AM [-0700], Covington, Chris wrote:
All interested parties should read:
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as OK, we'll change an aspect or
two
Note the date on that first letter.
--JST
* Covington, Chris [Tue, 16 Sep 2003]
From: Covington, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly
All interested parties should read:
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
I just
what am i doing wrong here? I am trying to unblacklist an address
getting tagged by Infinite-Monkeys.
using spamassassin 2.55
i put the following line in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf with all my
other rules and whitelisted addresses (all work fine) but this will not
work...
Hello
my postmaster has pointed me to this discussion list
--
Questions regarding SpamAssassin should be sent to the mailing list:
spamassassin-talk /at/ lists /dot/ sourceforge /dot/ net.
--
I would like to outline a problem and like to ask for
ok folks Spamassassin isn't doing a very good job with this guys spam
From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:16:00 AM Asia/Bangkok
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I heard from them :)
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reading through this list a bit got me to run some of these through
spamassassin -D. Looks like the reason the sa-learn cron jobs were being
classified as spam is that most legitimate email is sent to me as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], and most spammers email me as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I posted my latest patches for razor 2.34 here a few days ago. I
Is this the patch you posted:
- - - --- Client/Core.pm~ 2002-11-25 19:07:38.0 +0100
+++ Client/Core.pm 2002-11-25 18:55:35.0 +0100
@@ -216,8 +216,10 @@
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Deugau wrote:
Mike Loiterman wrote:
I followed the instuructions below to patch Razor2's taint
problem. The Config.pm patch worked perfectly, but the Core.pm
patch failed at hunk 1. Is this an SA issue, or a Razor
issue..(i.e. patch
-tom
-Original Message-
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
the problem is all the other TLD's that are wildcard(ed) and
hosted on other registrar roots. Not just .com and .net
The .cn .tw (not yet .kr) are also using the same technique
I believe there was a post
Bill Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wanted to setup an RHSBL test that would simply query my local DNS server
for a host A record. Here is what I attempted to do, however, this does
not work: [...]
The current 2.60 code isn't able to do such a test.
Just apply this patch to the 2.60
Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tried applying the ptachfile posted to the list but it fails at
chunk 1 on the Core.pm patch. I'm trying to patch razor-agents-2.34.
This patch (which will be with the next release) applies fine for me.
--- start of cut text --
This
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:30:51 -0400 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pick it up from:
http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc5.tar.gz
http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc5.zip
Built this from .spec file, updated the
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:12:46PM +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
Built this from .spec file, updated the rpms, identifies as 2.60-rc4
AFAICS.
Slip up,or maybe I'm still running rc4 and the rpm -U failed?
To build the RPM from these rc tarballs, you have to rename them to
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Jennifer Wheeler wrote:
what am i doing wrong here? I am trying to unblacklist an address
getting tagged by Infinite-Monkeys.
using spamassassin 2.55
i put the following line in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf with all my
other rules and whitelisted addresses
Since upgrading to SA 2.55 (SA is being called via procmail), I'm getting a
large amount of error messages in my mail.log (see blow). SA is working
fine aside from these error messages however. Anybody know what's I missed
during the upgrade? Please let me know. Thanks
spamd[22835]: Failed to
Jennifer Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what am i doing wrong here? I am trying to unblacklist an address
getting tagged by Infinite-Monkeys.
Monkeys is a DNS blacklist. It is also not used by SpamAssassin by
default, so you seem to be confused in one way or another.
1. unblacklist_from
I completely agree with your opinion about the open proxy biz. I'll see
if we can get them to take care of that on their end. In the meantime,
I've been asked to get these particular emails through to us without a
spam tag :) I'm just having trouble accomplishing that. (and have had
to fight
Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this the patch you posted:
- - - --- Client/Core.pm~ 2002-11-25 19:07:38.0 +0100
+++ Client/Core.pm2002-11-25 18:55:35.0 +0100
@@ -216,8 +216,10 @@
foreach $rr ($query-answer) {
my $pushed = 0;
Hi
Is it possible that SpamAssassin doesn't recognize legitimate mac outlook
4.01 users? I had to whitelist a mac user so her messages could get
through, What brings her over the bounce threshold is
FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK.
following is message that would bounce if not whitelisted:
Return-Path:
I have a question, and forgive me if this has been
posted already.
I scoured through the docs and coulnd't really find
the info I needed.
I am trying to pass a variable through to a
shell. (i've been told to use a forward file, and use
procmailrc file. but I am also using mysql for my
No need to CC me; I'm subscribed to the list.
Mike Loiterman wrote:
Kris Deugau wrote:
The patch was created by someone else. I didn't apply it directly,
as I wanted a patch to apply during a .rpm build, so I rebuilt it
as a whole-source-tree patch. I've just pushed it out to
I'm running spamd in daemon mode and I get the following error:
File exists?Cannot open bayes_path /home/pop3/.spamassassin/bayes R/W: File
exists?Cannot open bayes_path /home/pop3/.spamassassin/bayes R/W: File
exists?
Also spamd dies frequently supervice has to restart it about every 20
Here's a quick rule I just made in response to Verisign's actions.
header __DNS_SITEFINDER eval:check_rbl_from_host('sitefinder', '.')
tflags __DNS_SITEFINDER net
header SITEFINDER_IP eval:check_rbl_sub('sitefinder', '64.94.110.11')
describe SITEFINDER_IP From: resolves to a verisign
alright, one more question is there any way i can remove the @domain.tld?
so i just have the email prefix before the @?
- Original Message -
From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alan Fullmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] help with
i added ${user} on the end of the master.cf command, then used $5
I now understand how it works. thanks!
- Original Message -
From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alan Fullmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] help with master.cf and filter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
The patch looks more like Morse code than a unified diff (it's
quite corrupted). Use the one I posted earlier today.
Heh...you're right. That patch was corrupt.
Anyway, it patches fine now, but now I get an error on make:
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:13:12 +0200 Hubert Daubmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
my postmaster has pointed me to this discussion list
--
[...]
I would like to outline a problem and like to ask for updating the
manufacturer strings for Microsoft Outlook 2003.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:35:23PM -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
i added ${user} on the end of the master.cf command, then used $5
I now understand how it works. thanks!
If I'm not mistaken, that is going to cause you to deliver two copies of
the message: one to $recipient, the other to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 06:08 pm, Jeremy Kister wrote:
while the patches above are not the perfect solution, they are as close as
you can get while Verisign is in power.
if anyone knows of a patch for BINDv9, please let me know.
There's a
Don't forget to vote with your wallet.
* Move your domains from Network Solutions to any
other registrar.
* Don't renew your SSL certs and find another
CA (if possible). Don't use Thawte - Verisign
owns them.
* Sell your VRSN stock and get out of any funds
that invest
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Matt Beland is rumored to have said:
I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that hypocritical or no, that could
mean trouble for ISC if VeriSign chose to push the issue.
What kind of trouble? Certainly not legal trouble. There's nothing that says that
94 matches
Mail list logo
