I run spamd with -D option to look into the details of the log.
I am getting below error;
Sun Jul 20 10:04:55 2008 [25978] info: spamd: clean message (1.5/10.0) for
vpopmail:89 in 0.1 seconds, 1270 bytes.
Sun Jul 20 10:04:55 2008 [25978] info: spamd: result: . 1 -
Yavuz Maslak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Do you have a question? Please do not just paste random log excerpts without
context/background and a specific question.
--
Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I just received an e-mail with the following report:
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:
0.0 URIBL_RED Contains an URL listed in the URIBL redlist
[URIs: unclassified.de]
0.2 URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL greylist
Wow, I wonder how I am going to convince Bluehost that they are having
issues.
What's the best way to disable individual RBL checks? I'm also
curious which tests you consider to be most effective on your system.
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 16:03 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
Hello,
I just received an e-mail with the following report:
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:
0.0 URIBL_RED Contains an URL listed in the URIBL redlist
[URIs: unclassified.de]
0.2 URIBL_GREY
Hi!
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
different resolver, but could not find such a configuration option.
What is the generally approved way to disable individual RBL checks? I can
easily disable all of them, but I haven't figured out how to disable
Yves Goergen wrote:
[snip]
The message is a reply to a message from me. It contains my text quoted,
complete with my previous signature that also has the link to
http://unclassified.de. I was a bit surprised about the high spam score
of 5.0 and looked at the report. It says that
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I
should have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Skip
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
I was actually thinking the same thing about configuring SA to use a
different resolver, but could not find such a configuration
Hi!
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Just score the tests you want to disable 0.
Same answer, just score them 0.
Bye,
Raymond.
Skip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Please do not top-post (google if you are unfamiliar with the term). And as
already advised, just set score to 0 to disable individual
On 20.07.2008 17:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
on the host running SA, try
$ host 1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org
It says:
1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org does not exist (Authoritative answer)
The server is located in a well-known computing centre in Nuremberg,
Germany. I assume they know how to handle DNS
On 20.07.2008 16:39 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It strikes me as odd that the URI should be listed in all these BLs. DNS
hiccup?
Maybe.
Bad DNS response? That probably would explain why the domain ended up on
RED, GRAY and BLACK. See above. Do you see hits like these with other
mail,
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:07 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 16:39 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It strikes me as odd that the URI should be listed in all these BLs. DNS
hiccup?
Maybe.
Bad DNS response? That probably would explain why the domain ended up on
RED, GRAY and
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 17:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
on the host running SA, try
$ host 1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org
It says:
1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org does not exist (Authoritative answer)
The server is located in a well-known computing centre in Nuremberg,
On 20.07.2008 20:21 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:07 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 16:39 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Bad DNS response? That probably would explain why the domain ended up on
RED, GRAY and BLACK. See above. Do you see hits like
On 20.07.2008 20:54 CE(S)T, Duane Hill wrote:
smtpgate# host 2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.10
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.2
Same here, for whatever it's worth.
--
Yves
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 22:21 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
Correct. My fault. I've looked through the e-mails that I have received
today and that contain my quoted signature. All of them I could find
from today have this issue. All messages from today that contain the
link show the same 3
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 18:32 -0400, David Ronis wrote:
I use evolution as my mail client. Evolution supports spamassassin and
in the past I let evolution use spamassassin to filter incoming mail.
Recently, I switched to spam filtering using procmail. The relevant
section of my my .procmailrc
Duane Hill wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 17:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
on the host running SA, try
$ host 1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org
It says:
1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org does not exist (Authoritative answer)
The server is located in a well-known computing
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, mouss wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 17:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
on the host running SA, try
$ host 1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org
It says:
1.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org does not exist (Authoritative answer)
The server is
Back on-list. If my comment may be mis-understood, others might
mis-understand it just as well.
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 18:42 -0400, David Ronis wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 22:55 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
[snip]
Also, learning (Bayes training) now needs to be done server side. The
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Skip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I want to stop the test from even being done at all. I guess I should
have included more of the previous post. Sorry :(
Please do not top-post (google if you are unfamiliar with the term). And as
already advised, just set
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In this
thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible DNS
problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold for
spamhaus. All they say at the spamhaus FAQ is that if you exceed
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, please bear with me as I do have a few more questions. In
this thread before, some people thought I should look at a possible
DNS problem, or perhaps my system is exceeding the daily threshold
for spamhaus. All they say at the spamhaus FAQ is that
Skip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
try:
$ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.4
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.10
2.0.0.127.zen.spamhaus.org has address 127.0.0.2
BTW, what DNS server(s) are you using?
[...]
I got this:
$
Skip wrote:
I got this:
$ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
Host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
That can't be good. I do not know what dns server we are using at
bluehost. I did a ps and searched for anything that looked like a dns
server, but couldn't find any. Sometimes
Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I got this:
$ host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org
Host 2.0.0.127.zen.spmahaus.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
^^^
I see the same thing.
Woops! We both just copypasted the same typo. :-) This should work:
27 matches
Mail list logo
