Hello I need a little bit more help please. I am using webmin and got
Fetchmail working partially...
It checks and downloads the remote message but doesn't deliever the messages
to the unix account. Sendmail is installed and i noticed it adds
"@localhost", i don't know if that is the problem thou
Thanks alot will do :)
tmasboa wrote:
>
> Hello, I am new to SA and here is the situation:
>
> A normal mail server from my hosting company (pop3)
>
> and basically I have a computer i want to check the emails, run them
> through SA, and then deliver them to a local mail server just in our
> n
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Depends on whether you equate bare domains with URL's, I suppose.
If MUA's equate them with URLs, spammers will use this, and
SpamAssassin will use it.
There is only so
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> There is an RFC that defines what a URL looks like. A bare domain
> doesn't cut it.
>
> You want to forbid bare domains in email? Go ahead. You can forbid
> anything you like.
I don't, and I doubt Matt wants to either.
> But don't call it a test for URL's, since it
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Depends on whether you equate bare domains with URL's, I suppose.
If MUA's equate them with URLs, spammers will use this, and
SpamAssassin will use it.
There is only so much braindeath in UA's tha
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:06:32AM +1300, Kathryn Allan wrote:
> I would have though that the rule file would have ended up inside the
> updates_spamassassin_org folder as all the other .cf files seem to be
> inside there.
updates_spamassassin_org is for update files from updates.spamassassin.or
Hi all,
I have recently inherited the responsibility of looking after our spam
machine as such i'm having a few teething issues : )
I just followed the instructions in the sare-sa-update-howto.txt I am
just a bit confused as to whether I have done it correctly originally in
the /var/lib/spam
> -Original Message-
> For the most part you can match any character by the appearance of the
> character. Any character with special meaning needs to be escaped in
some
> way. The easiest way is usually with a backslash, but in some cases
you
> can
> also do it by making it a member of
-Original Message-
> > We don't want to "only allow" the English locale, because we (here
at
> > my work) do not want our international clients (non Russian) to be
> > denied email service.
>
> ok_locales en ja ko th zh
>
> This will allow anything but Cyrillic char sets. Please note tha
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Eric A. Hall wrote:
I'm guessing the URI analyzer needs to be smarter.
That's strangely appropriate to the issue I had with "calthurs.com".
It would be nice if this checker had an option to enforce checking
only of well-formed URL's (i.e. not "anything that migh
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Depends on whether you equate bare domains with URL's, I suppose.
If MUA's equate them with URLs, spammers will use this, and
SpamAssassin will use it.
There is only so much braindeath in UA's that you can bend the ru
Eric A. Hall wrote:
I sometimes get SVN notifications that contain lists of files and their
status. The filenames will often get picked up by the URI matching
algorithm, each of which end up being processed through numerous lookups
(URICOUNTRY, my LDAP filter, etc). Sometimes I get very large mes
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please, do not paste a gigantic blob of multipart MIME messages. Put it
up somewhere, raw, and simply provide a link.
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 18:44 -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Anyway, I have no idea why I'm seeing s
I sometimes get SVN notifications that contain lists of files and their
status. The filenames will often get picked up by the URI matching
algorithm, each of which end up being processed through numerous lookups
(URICOUNTRY, my LDAP filter, etc). Sometimes I get very large messages
with hundreds o
Michael Scheidell wrote:
From: Philip Prindeville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:44:55 -0800
To: Spamassassin Mailing List
Subject: Clearly bogus false positives -- on "abuse" contact point, no less
Hmmm. I think we need a BL for reporting ISP's that are clueless as to
run fi
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 08:41 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> There is, but due to complaints, it was taken out of SA. (some thought that
> just because you ignore abuse@ or postmaster@ email wasn't enough of a sign
> that you were a spammer. And it is 'Spam' assassin, not 'lame-admin'
> assassin
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please, do not paste a gigantic blob of multipart MIME messages. Put it
up somewhere, raw, and simply provide a link.
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 18:44 -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Anyway, I have no idea why I'm seeing some of these scores.
> From: Philip Prindeville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:44:55 -0800
> To: Spamassassin Mailing List
> Subject: Clearly bogus false positives -- on "abuse" contact point, no less
>
> Hmmm. I think we need a BL for reporting ISP's that are clueless as to
> run filtering on the
18 matches
Mail list logo
