On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 19:11 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: Ramprasad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:28 -0700, jdow wrote:
Before you blame Earthlink note that it has NOT gone through Earthlink
servers.
relay2.corp.good-sam.com is the receiving email server.
It's a forged
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 11:05 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
Apparently they have removed SPF records after publishing them once.
Thats a stupid idea IMHO. Today I am forced to TEMP FAIL earthlink ids
whenever there is a spam attack on my servers
SPF can be a pain for a number of reasons that
Greetings,
I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
configuration file, I'll check it later.
I still think it may be caused by the
I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
configuration file, I'll check it later.
Are you using smapc/spamd or plain spamassassin?
On Saturday, September 2, 2006, 8:43:21 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
On Saturday 02 September 2006 8:46 am, SM wrote:
At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
Henrik,
My users ARE identifyied by either locally trusted IPS or pop-before-smtp,
i.e. thery end up in mynetworks, but they are STILL verified by the
incoming filter.. And I'm using your suggested setup very strictly..?!
As far as I can see, the incoming milter(s) DOES get invoked for ALL
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 11:17:59 PM, Donald Craig wrote:
And Theo Van Dinter pointed out:
You're not by chance using the opendns.{com,org} folks for DNS, are you?
Of course. I'm an idiot. I switched to OpenDNS a couple of weeks back.
Time to return from whence I came. Thank you,
Ramprasad wrote:
Why not SPF ??
Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
SPF_PASS associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
stupid spammers look more stupid. The clever ones aren't affected.
DK is a resource HOG. And I cant do that easily
Email Lists wrote:
-
- You can clear the AWL for a sender like this:
-
- spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
- ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is the sender)
-
- Make sure you do this as the user who is having the problem.
-
- Thanks and kind regards
-
- If this
With regards to my post on Sept 8, I have not seen any responses. No
one else is having this issue with the .spamassassin folder not
always being created for a new user?
This bit of code is mixing up the unix username for the last message
filtered [for a pre-existing SA user] rather than the
Hi All,
With the great help of Michel Valliancourt I managed to solve my
bayesian problem. Solution, for the archives, is below
On 26-sep-2006, at 21:13, Peter Teunissen wrote:
After having trained SA with sufficient amounts of ham spam, I
have bayesian testing working. When I test it
Well I think the FAQ note is a good idea, since a hyperactive
DNS server wasn't the first thing I thought of when I saw
this problem. However, turning off the OpenDNS hyperactivity
does require a fixed IP address to originate the queries - I
found it easier to use OpenDNS for my desktops, and
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
Ramprasad wrote:
Why not SPF ??
Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
SPF_PASS associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
stupid spammers look more stupid. The clever ones
Ramprasad wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
Ramprasad wrote:
Why not SPF ??
Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
SPF_PASS associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
stupid spammers look more stupid. The
Hi
I've the problem with my spamassassin.
I'm using spamassassin with exim (MTA) and clamav (AntiVirus).
My spamassassin start with the follow command line:
/usr/sbin/spamd --syslog=local4 --create-prefs --max-children 10
--max-conn-per-child=100 --helper-home-dir -d
--pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
On 9/29/06, Olivier Nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
configuration file, I'll check it
Balzi Andrea wrote:
Hi
I've the problem with my spamassassin.
I'm using spamassassin with exim (MTA) and clamav (AntiVirus).
My spamassassin start with the follow command line:
/usr/sbin/spamd --syslog=local4 --create-prefs --max-children 10
--max-conn-per-child=100 --helper-home-dir -d
-Original Message-
[...]
every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY
too
Bret Miller wrote:
I used to have problems with bayes locking and journaling. When it
finally corrupted the database, I decided it was time to put it into a
real SQL database instead of using DB_File. Haven't had a single problem
with bayes CPU or locking since.
Maybe it's time you consider
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on amadeus3.local
X-Spam-Level:
DomainKey-Status: no signature
To whom it may concern.
I need your help. I run a legitimate business ( 27 years ) of Search and
Placement in the electronic industry. As you can see for the text below I
am unable to contact people about the jobs that they want to interview for.
How do I get unlisted from the
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is either
using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you. You
really need to contact comcast about this, not the spamassassin list.
This list has nothing to do with your problem.
See:
hi there --
I don't think SpamAssassin has anything to do with this --
the message you forwarded contained this error:
Connected to 206.18.177.26 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550 66.235.211.53 blocked by
ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=comcast,dc=net - BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
On 29-Sep-06, at 1:06 PM, Tom Myers wrote:
To whom it may concern.
I need your help. I run a legitimate business ( 27 years ) of
Search and Placement in the electronic industry. As you can see
for the text below I am unable to contact people about the jobs
that they want to interview
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is,
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
helps in these
Ken A wrote:
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
(Let me taste that line one more time...)
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
Then why
Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forge the From: header in an
email
message that it ends up being considerably delayed when sent thru my providers
Email to SMS Gateway. I strongly suspect they have in place measures to
identify SPAM that will cause the message to receive a much lower
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:59:13PM +0200, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Then why aren't they using one to block their own customers from
spamming the rest of the world?
While you can sell we block spam from your inbox to people as a reason to
pay you money, you can't sell we stop you from sending
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forge the From: header in an
email
message that it ends up being considerably delayed when sent thru my providers
Email to SMS Gateway. I strongly suspect they have in place measures to
identify SPAM that will cause the
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Ken A wrote:
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
(Let me taste that line one more time...)
Comcast themselves are
Comcast has their own blacklist, I do not know how they arrive at what
is spam and what is
not, in my experience, it is questionable. Your hosting company is the
one that is blacklisted.
This can be effecting many or just effecting you, it depends on whether
they assign individual
ip number
Philippe Couas wrote:
4 rpm -Uvh spamassassin-3.1.5-1.rh9.rf.i386.rpm
...
Where could i found theses perls optional packages, and how install
them ?
I see you're using the RPMForge packages (or possibly a subset like
FreshRPMs or DAG). If an RPMForge package has
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:59:13PM +0200, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Then why aren't they using one to block their own customers from
spamming the rest of the world?
While you can sell we block spam from your inbox to people as a reason to
pay you money, you can't sell
Has gocr .41 fixed the segfault problem patched in .40 by
http://antispam.imp.ch/patches/patch-gocr-segfault ?
If not is there an updated patch for .41?
thanks,
Russ
Balzi Andrea wrote:
-Original Message-
[...]
every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
That is a bit excessive. My first guess is
Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and
I'm using Former ATT Wireless / Cingular Blue. email goes to @mmode.com
gateway. I'm guessing but so far I'm seeing reliable messaging since I stopped
forging From:
Quoting Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forge the
On Friday, September 29, 2006, 12:32:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Balzi Andrea wrote:
BLACKLIST_URI
You should use the ws.surbl.org version of this blacklist instead.
See here for more info:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SURBL
Though ws.surbl.org is the direct descendant of
On Thursday 28 September 2006 1:17 am, Donald Craig wrote:
And Theo Van Dinter pointed out:
You're not by chance using the opendns.{com,org} folks for DNS, are you?
Of course. I'm an idiot. I switched to OpenDNS a couple of weeks back.
Time to return from whence I came. Thank you,
Don
From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Friday, September 29, 2006, 3:59:03 PM
Subject: Non-blocklisted embedded URLs are getting hits on
URIBL_AB_SURBL and URIBL_PH_SURBL in SpamAssassin 3.1.5
===8==Original message text===
On Thursday 28
Balzi Andrea wrote:
-Original Message-
[...]
every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
That is a bit excessive. My first
42 matches
Mail list logo
