Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 1:44 PM, mouss wrote:
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
start by updating the RFCs.
The RFCs are, and have always been clear on how MX records are
supposed to be used.
Different people interpret when a delivery attempt succeeds differently.
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
There's nothing on
Personally, I am tired of this entire thread. It has nothing to do with
SA, so PLEASE move it to the MailChannels discussion forums or lists.
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'm tired of wasting time with this pointless conversation. Just stop
making authoritative statements about products you haven't
Robert - elists writes:
From: mouss
http://www.dnsbl.com/
I have never paid attention to it so... questions..
Was dsbl.org widely used?
In general, is it considered a major and necessary dnsbl tool for the war
against spam?
Does anyone have any idea how much sustained
On 20.05.08 12:46, Shelley Waltz wrote:
I am moving from old smtp(MX)/amavisd/spamassassin server to a
new smtp(MX)/amavisd/spamassassin server
I will be forwarding particular users email from the old server to the
new server as they are moved by using an alias in
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 12:12:11 ram wrote:
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting s ystem
this is new. spammers are fast :(
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am
http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you
provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this
data.
Possible.
Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you
should be explicit with your links.
2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to do when an
unknown mail server contacts you is different in the approach.
greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this
point, because the botnets know to retry
And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
responses.
FYI: So are other products (at least one). And slowing down TCP sessions
will hit ISPs as well btw. but that's a different stories.
Oh and btw:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 01:17 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
I am ongoing to install a new server for (currently) 43 users
[...]
I can not use private rules and if I call it with
|/usr/bin/spamassassin
incoming batch-spam can kill the server which must be responsible under
any
Can someone point me to a list and description of vars available to plugins.
I know a couple like $pms-get(to) , etc but there's also to:addr. I'm
looking for some sort of reference that tell me what the differences are?
Also how to just get a clean to address. I've notice that may mailing
lists
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 08:57:37AM -0400, Rick Duval wrote:
Can someone point me to a list and description of vars available to plugins.
I know a couple like $pms-get(to) , etc but there's also to:addr. I'm
looking for some sort of reference that tell me what the differences are?
$pms-get()
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'm not -- my Treo delivers mail directly to my mail server. From
DHCP-assigned addresses all over the world. I enjoy travel ;-)
Then I guess you use authenticated SMTP for that.
The easiest way to handle this probably is to simply avoid
calling SA for authenticated mail.
If I have customer per user filtering I need ot have separate emails to work
upon but if a email comes cc'd to 3 people at the same domain is there a way
to handle that?
Exim is my MTA, perhaps a way to have it generated multiple copies?
Rick
You can do this with an incestuous call to exim. Make this your first
router:
split:
driver = accept
domains = the.domains.you.want.to.do.this.for
condition = ${if eq {$received_protocol}{split}{no}{yes}}
transport = send_to_self
no_verify
Add this transport:
send_to_self:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 08:55, ram wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 01:44 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 23:19, mouss wrote:
configure postfix to replace previous ones
/^(X\-Envelope\-From:.*)/ REPLACE X-$1
envelope from can here be forged
Precisely what I am afraid of.
On May 22, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'm not -- my Treo delivers mail directly to my mail server. From
DHCP-assigned addresses all over the world. I enjoy travel ;-)
Then I guess you use authenticated SMTP for that.
The easiest way to handle this probably is
Jo Rhett wrote:
That's a hack with consequences. Like just disable the firewall.
Uh, no ;-)
Lots of users of this host have Windows PCs, and running SA on all
outbound mail has both alerted them quickly to the problem and avoided
nailing other people with spam and/or virus runs.
Something
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
Then I guess you use authenticated SMTP for that.
The easiest way to handle this probably is to simply avoid calling SA for
authenticated mail.
That's a hack with consequences. Like just disable the firewall. Uh, no
;-)
Lots of users of this host
hi, i had a look for this issue but (surprisingly) couldn't find an answer
in the forum
i have this rule:
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
describe toSupport_MYCORP Sent to our support alias
score toSupport_MYCORP -2
but i get this in my logs:
[16923]
At 13:23 22-05-2008, Dave Funk wrote:
We require our PC users to authenticate when sending and I had
assumed that would stop viruses/trojans. Am I being naive?
No. But it's only one extra step for malware to capture SMTP
authentication information.
Regards,
-sm
smcbutler wrote:
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
[16923] warn: Possible unintended interpolation of @mycorp in string at
/etc/mail/spamassassin/myRules.cf, rule toSupport_MYCORP, line 1.
isn't escaping the @ enough to get this rule functional
It should be enough.
Is it possible that this --allowplugins was somehow disrupting the
sa-update as now that I have removed it my rules are being used again
(which may mean that they are back up to day?)
Kate
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:57:49AM +1200, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
Any
Which rule is checking to see that the Message-ID line has a TLD after the @ ?
On May 22, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
First, even if this isn't what you meant, I must set the record
straight... requiring SMTP password-authentication is NOT a hack.
Instead, that is a security feature. I'm not sure if you meant that
differently, but I state this just to be on
On May 22, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Dave Funk wrote:
Lots of users of this host have Windows PCs, and running SA on all
outbound mail has both alerted them quickly to the problem and
avoided nailing other people with spam and/or virus runs.
Genuine curiosity Jo, have you seen instances of
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
Jo Rhett wrote:
There's nothing
Anyone have any ideas? Just started cropping up a few ago.
James
May 22 16:05:32 myshield spamd[2914]: razor2: razor2 check failed: Invalid
argument razor2: razor2 had unknown error during get_server_info at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm line 188.
at
Bob Proulx wrote:
smcbutler wrote:
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
[16923] warn: Possible unintended interpolation of @mycorp in string at
/etc/mail/spamassassin/myRules.cf, rule toSupport_MYCORP, line 1.
isn't escaping the @ enough to get this rule functional
On Thu, May 22, 2008 22:27, smcbutler wrote:
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Fri, May 23, 2008 00:58, smcbutler wrote:
yes, that seemed to be problem :(
no the regexp is olso wroung since . oldso need \.
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, mouss wrote:
what if he comes back later to the same MX, again and again (AFAIK,
this is the case with qmail)? mail will be lost.
snarky comment
Good. Time for qmail to die ;-)
/snarky comment
Agreed. Qmail should die!
On Thursday 22 May 2008 5:08 pm, James Lay wrote:
Anyone have any ideas? Just started cropping up a few ago.
James
May 22 16:05:32 myshield spamd[2914]: razor2: razor2 check failed: Invalid
argument razor2: razor2 had unknown error during get_server_info at
Hello all.
My spamass-milter INPUT_MAIL_FILTER config in sendmail is as follows:
INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`spamassassin',`S=local:/var/run/spamass.sock,F=T, ...)dnl
Yet when I test this feature by manually shutting down spamassassin (service
spamassassin stop), I still receive messages. Shouldn't
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Kamau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2008 2:07 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Temp fail not working...
I absolutely need to have all messages scanned for SPAM - too much of it
in
our domains! What can I do to
hi, i had a look for this issue but (surprisingly)
couldn't find an answer in the forum
i have this rule:
header toSupport_MYCORP To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
describe toSupport_MYCORP Sent to our support alias
score toSupport_MYCORP -2
SA does that with settings:
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Kamau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2008 2:07 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Temp fail not working...
I absolutely need to have all messages scanned for SPAM
- too much of it in
our domains! What can I do to
37 matches
Mail list logo
