From: Chris Purves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Purves wrote:
I am not getting SPF_ hits for most messages that I expect should pass
SPF. On one message when I run through spamassassin with debug I see:
[5959] dbg: spf: checking HELO (helo=, ip=66.111.4.28)
[5959] dbg: spf: cannot get HELO,
OpenMacNews a écrit :
sending attachments to lists wins nothing that can't be readily replaced
with post-sites, costs bandwidth/cpu @ the server, runs counter to
'typical' list rules/netiquette around the web.
there is one thing that attachments win: self contained archives. It may
be
Joey a écrit :
So if I use postfix I'm SOL?
amavisd-new.
OpenMacNews wrote:
i hear your point(s). AND i'm well aware of how many attachments are
sent to this list ... don't need to search the archives.
hence my point/question.
a potentially-executable attachment ESPECIALLY from a spam/virus-centric
list is not something i'm terribly thrilled
RE: rbldnsd ported to windows?
Does anyone know if rbldnsd has ever been ported to windows? If not, is there
an easy way to do this?
Thanks,
Rob McEwen
PowerView Systems
Of course under Windows a .pl may well be linked to perl and therefore
be executable without having to do a chmod (which of course Windows
doesn't understand). However, in general I have no problem with either
in-lining or attaching script code.
Executables, on the other hand are a different
This is a little off this post, but why don't I ever see
USER_IN_WHITELIST in my emails. I see the -100's affect in my
X-Spam-Status but I don't see the rule. I am running SpamAssassin via
mimedefang. Could that have something to do with it, or is there a
configuration option I have missed?
Barton L. Phillips a écrit :
Of course under Windows a .pl may well be linked to perl and therefore
be executable without having to do a chmod (which of course Windows
doesn't understand). However, in general I have no problem with either
in-lining or attaching script code.
I don't see much
Barton L. Phillips wrote:
This is a little off this post, but why don't I ever see
USER_IN_WHITELIST in my emails. I see the -100's affect in my
X-Spam-Status but I don't see the rule. I am running SpamAssassin via
mimedefang. Could that have something to do with it, or is there a
Yes I am sure I see the -100 score effect, here is an example from this
message posted to the list:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-107.0 required=5.0
tests=1.6:AWL;
version=3.1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 68.122.243.210
Note that it is mimedefang and not spamassassin that is
Say, I was trying the following:
# cat /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-rules.cf
header LOCAL_CHARSETS Subject =~
/=\?(gb2312|shift-jis|iso-2022-jp|iso-8859-([2-9]|1[0-9])|windows-1251)\?/i
describe LOCAL_CHARSETS Subject: contains charsets we don't accept
score LOCAL_CHARSETS
On Sat, February 25, 2006 4:18 pm, jdow said:
From: Chris Purves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Purves wrote:
I am not getting SPF_ hits for most messages that I expect should pass
SPF. On one message when I run through spamassassin with debug I see:
[5959] dbg: spf: checking HELO (helo=,
Subject:raw. The charset stuff has been stripped out by the time it is just
Subject.
Loren
From: Chris Purves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
* -1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
But if I run the same message from a user account with spamassassin -t
... I get:
-100 USER_IN_WHITELIST From: address is
14 matches
Mail list logo
