I received a spam from googlemail.com
I had assumed googlemail.com was not available for free domains, Am I
wrong. Can I register a googlemail.com id
I received a spam from googlemail.com
I had assumed googlemail.com was not available for free
domains, Am I wrong. Can I register a googlemail.com id
If I remember it right,googlemail.com is a domain used instead of gmail.com in
UK.
There already was a gmail in UK...
I think it's also used in Germany. The two domain names function identically, and I even think if someone sends a message to either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], both will reach you - ie. you can use them interchangeably. But whether you can
officially register for one or the other
Hello,
I found out that some ReplaceTags rules cause false positives with words in
non-english languages, like:
medzi (between) and/or medzinarozny (international) fire
SUBJECT_FUZZY_MEDS (medz...)
peníze (money) fires FRT_PENIS1
I can of course make subrules that match medzi or peníze, and a
On Thu, April 24, 2008 05:35, Bookworm wrote:
I'm starting to see some new phishing/scam attempts.
more like you see tracking.domain.tld
remember tlds that is 2nd level like co.uk
but the tracking part is not a domain name
Thoughts?
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf see the tld options
After months of doing a great job, I started to get spam back into my
system again.
Apr 23 16:26:06 mail sqlgrey: grey: new: 82.67.64.191(82.67.64.191),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 23 16:26:06 mail postfix/smtpd[23130]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
Bookworm wrote:
I'm starting to see some new phishing/scam attempts.
What I was thinking was that it might be worthwhile to add a rule to not
so much check links, but count periods.
I was going to put in the web address that I received as an example,
but I think that's why this is a second
From: Johnson, S [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:27:33 -0500
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Conversation: Oh ohh. grey listing starting to fail
Subject: Oh ohh. grey listing starting to fail
After months of doing a great job, I started to get spam back into my system
again.
Apr
On Thu, April 24, 2008 16:27, Johnson, S wrote:
It sucks that they are now starting to re-queue their stupid spam; why
don't they GET A CLUE that we don't want their [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why not block the ip ?
or:
1: accept if spf is pass
2: accept if dkim signed
else reject
Benny Pedersen
I'm not sure if it's a zombie or not. I've received 3 spam from this
place within 2 days. If I've received the spam, I know my users have
received it even more as that was the pattern in the past.
It's not listed on any of the RBLs yet.
From: Michael
At 07:27 24-04-2008, Johnson, S wrote:
After months of doing a great job, I started to get spam back into
my system again.
Apr 23 16:26:06 mail sqlgrey: grey: new: 82.67.64.191(82.67.64.191),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 23 16:26:06 mail
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, SM wrote:
It's trivial for malware engines to retry. There isn't any queueing, as
a standard MTA does, being done. This has been happening since some
time. Greylisting only fails if you rely on it to stop spam.
Greylisting, like any other antispam technique, blocks
Johnson, S wrote:
It’s not listed on any of the RBLs yet.
Actually, 82.67.64.191 is currently listed on the following DNSBLs:
FiveTenSig
HostKarma
PSBL
UceProtect-1
NoMoreFunn
But SOME of those are too FP-risky to outright block on, and I don't
know if any of these listings existed at the
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598 0.11440.801 0.752.70 MIME_BASE64_TEXT
It's not useful as a spam rule, not sure why it has such a high score. I'd
probably just make it an info rule if anything uses it, or otherwise remove it.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at
I think it used to be good, but as Jason notes, that formatting quirk
has become more common in ham and less in spam (there was probably one
botnet using it heavily).
feel free to lower the score.
--j.
Theo Van Dinter writes:
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598
At 08:53 24-04-2008, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598 0.11440.801 0.752.70 MIME_BASE64_TEXT
It's not useful as a spam rule, not sure why it has such a high score. I'd
probably just make it an info rule if anything uses it, or
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, SM wrote:
It's trivial for malware engines to retry. There isn't any queueing,
as a standard MTA does, being done. This has been happening since
some time. Greylisting only fails if you rely on it to stop spam.
Greylisting, like any other antispam
No takers on this? So few using sa-compile? Nobody knows? Too obvious to
bother answering?
---
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology Geology Departments
(*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center
~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Greetings,
I am attempting to implement SPF within SA and I have been receiving
the following errors in my spamd logfile.
dbg: spf: already checked for Received-SPF headers, proceeding with
DNS based checks
dbg: spf: cannot get Envelope-From, cannot use SPF
dbg: spf:
try running with -D and look for the debug messages.
Chris Hoogendyk writes:
No takers on this? So few using sa-compile? Nobody knows? Too obvious to
bother answering?
---
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology Geology Departments
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
No takers on this? So few using sa-compile? Nobody knows? Too obvious to
bother answering?
If you are enabling the Rule2XSBody plugin I see this in my debug output.
[6194] dbg: plugin:
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Rule2XSBody=HASH(0x8f1a208) implements
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:17:54AM -0700, William Taylor wrote:
Im still seeing this message is I have bayes disabled. Any ideas?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] williamt]# formail -s spamassassin -r ./Missed-Spam
1 message(s) examined.
Can't call method learn on an undefined value at
It's on here because its not an issue with greylisting (afterall it IS
working), but the overall Spamassassin process involved. I'm looking to
optimize what I am doing with Spamassassin since I am seeing the greylisting
stop catching the spam now...
Thanks for the input. I'm using:
Postfix
Justin Mason wrote:
try running with -D and look for the debug messages.
That was a fast reply. ;-)
I'm running spamassassin out of mimedefang with mimedefang multiplexor
as a milter in sendmail. It's also a fairly busy mta and I'm generating
rather large log files already, which, by
You mention that some are to false positive risky, are any of those not?
I'm not using any of those RBLs at the moment but I have 6 others that I
am.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Rob McEwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:43 AM
To:
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
try running with -D and look for the debug messages.
That was a fast reply. ;-)
I'm running spamassassin out of mimedefang with mimedefang multiplexor
as a milter in sendmail. It's also a fairly busy mta and I'm generating
rather large log
At 10:06 24-04-2008, Johnson, S wrote:
Thanks for the input. I'm using:
Postfix (I drop a ton of connections before the mail is even allowed
in to my filters)
- 6 RBLs
- malformed email tests
Spamassassin
mimedefang
razor2
dcc
pyzor
bayes lists
Mailscanner
If you have Mailscanner, you
On Thu, April 24, 2008 18:36, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
No takers on this? So few using sa-compile? Nobody knows? Too obvious to
bother answering?
no :-)
spamassassin 21 -D zoom -t /tmp/msg
if zoom are working then it works, if not check that Rule2XSBody plugin is
loaded
Benny Pedersen
Need
On 24/04/2008 12:43 PM, Michael Dunne wrote:
dbg: spf: cannot get Envelope-From, cannot use SPF
Make sure that the message as passed to SA has a Return-Path header. If
there are any trusted relays (received headers) in the message passed to
SA enable the always_trust_envelope_sender option.
29 matches
Mail list logo
