Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 23:17 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Yves Goergen schrieb:
What do you mean? My mail server uses the DNS servers of the computing
centre. What SpamAssassin does, I don't know. The IP addresses are:
The same as everyone else..
Christopher Bort wrote:
This is really not a SpamAssassin issue, but since this list is
populated by people who are interested in spammer behavior, I'm
throwing it out for comment. If it's too far off topic, my apologies
and I'll let it go at that.
At $DAYJOB I run a mail server and a name se
Skip wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, forget them. I am on my own again. I ran a few other
commands. What do you think of this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]# host 2.0.0.127.yahoo.com
Host 2.0.0.127.yahoo.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]# host 2.0.0.127.google.com
Host 2.0.0.127.google.com not
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:58 -0400, Skip wrote:
I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
host and what I got in response. *sigh*
Maybe tomorrow I'll have better luck with them.
FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SITE: pelorus.org
ADDR: 68.231
Yves Goergen wrote:
On 21.07.2008 22:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
view source (CTRL-U) and copy-paste to a file on your server. then run
# spamassassin -t < message.eml
Look through each single message from all my folders that I have
received within the last two weeks, view the source, copy it int
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 14:01 -0700, Christopher Bort wrote:
> I suppose they could
> be looking for back doors, but that seems like it would be a
> very low probability undertaking.
Other people's CPU cycles and net bandwidth are cheap (at least for
spammers). If they hit one in fifty thousand a
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:30 -0700, Christopher Bort wrote:
> For a while now, I've been seeing attempts to send mail to the
> home server for addresses in $DAYJOB domains. This is not a
> problem since the volume is low and they are being properly
> rejected as third-party relay attempts (auth
Christopher Bort wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > You are trying to apply logic to a situation to which no reason can be
> > applied. Spammers do not operate with a sanity of reason and logic.
> > There is intelligence. But bludgeoning others for their own gain only
> > makes sense to them and not
On 07/21/08 14:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
Christopher Bort wrote:
In all of the relay attempts I'm seeing on this mail server, the
recipient addresses are in domains for which the server is an NS.
They are looking for any connection possible. A nameserver is an
association. T
Christopher Bort wrote:
This is really not a SpamAssassin issue, but since this list is
populated by people who are interested in spammer behavior, I'm
throwing it out for comment. If it's too far off topic, my apologies
and I'll let it go at that.
At $DAYJOB I run a mail server and a name
At 14:58 21-07-2008, Skip wrote:
I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
host and what I got in response. *sigh*
What response did you expect? :-)
Regards,
-sm
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:58 -0400, Skip wrote:
> I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
> host and what I got in response. *sigh*
>
> Maybe tomorrow I'll have better luck with them.
>
> FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> SITE: pelorus.org
> ADDR: 68.231.250.115
>
> Why w
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 22:50 +0200, Michał Jęczalik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed a huge increase of spam rate in past 2-3 weeks. Most of it
> are messages with some quite normal Subject:, often (but not neccesarily)
> referring to some fake event (i.e. some politician stabbed to death) and
>
I thought you guys would like a little humor. Here's what I sent my
host and what I got in response. *sigh*
Maybe tomorrow I'll have better luck with them.
FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SITE: pelorus.org
ADDR: 68.231.250.115
Why would I be getting this on box106?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]# host 2.0
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, [ISO-8859-2] Micha? J?czalik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed a huge increase of spam rate in past 2-3 weeks. Most of it
> are messages with some quite normal Subject:, often (but not neccesarily)
> referring to some fake event (i.e. some politician stabbed to death) and
> the
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 23:17 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> Yves Goergen schrieb:
> > What do you mean? My mail server uses the DNS servers of the computing
> > centre. What SpamAssassin does, I don't know. The IP addresses are:
The same as everyone else... Sic.
> > # cat /etc/resolv.conf
> > n
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 21:50 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
> On 20.07.2008 22:42 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Run such a message through 'spamassassin' again, to see what it reports
> > *now*. Do you still see these strange, multiple URIBL hits?
> > spamassassin < message > out
>
> It st
Yves Goergen schrieb:
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 213.133.100.100
nameserver 213.133.99.99
nameserver 213.133.98.98
nameserver 213.133.98.97
Ah, Hetzner. I had a lot less problems since I started to run my own:
main:~> cat /etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 127.0.0.1
#nameserver 213.133.100.1
Christopher Bort wrote:
> In all of the relay attempts I'm seeing on this mail server, the
> recipient addresses are in domains for which the server is an NS.
They are looking for any connection possible. A nameserver is an
association. They will hope that perhaps it allows mail. Unlikely to
th
On 07/21/08 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mouss) wrote:
Christopher Bort wrote:
For a while now, I've been seeing attempts to send mail to the
home server for addresses in $DAYJOB domains. This is not a
problem since the volume is low and they are being properly
rejected as third-party relay at
On 21.07.2008 22:10 CE(S)T, mouss wrote:
view source (CTRL-U) and copy-paste to a file on your server. then run
# spamassassin -t < message.eml
Look through each single message from all my folders that I have
received within the last two weeks, view the source, copy it into a
file, upload it
Hello list.
I want to start using URIBL tests, so I added
urirhssub URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com.A 2
bodyURIBL_BLACK eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLACK')
describeURIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
tflags URIBL_BLACK net
score
Matt wrote:
> Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to add the detailed X-Spam-Report
> to every message rather then just those that have "X-Spam-Status:
> Yes"? Reason being is I want an easier way to study junk messages
> that get by Spamassassin.
Add this to your local.cf or user_prefs file:
ad
Yves Goergen wrote:
On 20.07.2008 22:42 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Run such a message through 'spamassassin' again, to see what it reports
*now*. Do you still see these strange, multiple URIBL hits?
spamassassin < message > out
It still reports that.
Also, check other email (incl
Matt wrote:
Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to add the detailed X-Spam-Report
to every message rather then just those that have "X-Spam-Status:
Yes"? Reason being is I want an easier way to study junk messages
that get by Spamassassin.
this depends on how you are running spamassassin. wit
Christopher Bort wrote:
This is really not a SpamAssassin issue, but since this list is
populated by people who are interested in spammer behavior, I'm throwing
it out for comment. If it's too far off topic, my apologies and I'll let
it go at that.
At $DAYJOB I run a mail server and a name se
Christopher Bort wrote:
This is really not a SpamAssassin issue, but since this list is
populated by people who are interested in spammer behavior, I'm throwing
it out for comment. If it's too far off topic, my apologies and I'll let
it go at that.
At $DAYJOB I run a mail server and a name se
Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to add the detailed X-Spam-Report
to every message rather then just those that have "X-Spam-Status:
Yes"? Reason being is I want an easier way to study junk messages
that get by Spamassassin.
Matt
On 20.07.2008 16:18 CE(S)T, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
This could be a DNS problem returning a .2 (positive response) for all
queries.
what DNS are you using for your queries?
What do you mean? My mail server uses the DNS servers of the computing
centre. What SpamAssassin does, I don't know. T
On 20.07.2008 22:42 CE(S)T, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Run such a message through 'spamassassin' again, to see what it reports
*now*. Do you still see these strange, multiple URIBL hits?
spamassassin < message > out
It still reports that.
Also, check other email (including spam!) for mult
This is really not a SpamAssassin issue, but since this list is
populated by people who are interested in spammer behavior, I'm
throwing it out for comment. If it's too far off topic, my
apologies and I'll let it go at that.
At $DAYJOB I run a mail server and a name server for several
domains
Skip wrote:
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
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.
I saw this error a couple times over the weekend. Is this something I
should worry about?
Use of uninitialized value in hash element at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Logger/Syslog.pm
It seems to relate to this bit of code:
local $SIG{'PIPE'} = sub {
$self->{SIGP
Robert - elists writes:
> >
> > Robert - elists wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't see anything on the www, so after a lil investigation, it
> > appears
> > > that on a centos 4.6 box with SA 3.2.5, that the default compiled SA
> > ruleset
> > > is in
> > >
> > > /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled
> > >
> >
>
> Robert - elists wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see anything on the www, so after a lil investigation, it
> appears
> > that on a centos 4.6 box with SA 3.2.5, that the default compiled SA
> ruleset
> > is in
> >
> > /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled
> >
> > And below...
> >
> > Question(s)
> >
> > So, t
Robert - elists writes:
>
> I didn't see anything on the www, so after a lil investigation, it appears
> that on a centos 4.6 box with SA 3.2.5, that the default compiled SA ruleset
> is in
>
> /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled
>
> And below...
>
> Question(s)
>
> So, to go back to standard SA p
I didn't see anything on the www, so after a lil investigation, it appears
that on a centos 4.6 box with SA 3.2.5, that the default compiled SA ruleset
is in
/var/lib/spamassassin/compiled
And below...
Question(s)
So, to go back to standard SA processing config, basically I just need to
admin
> >
> >
> Um, what makes you think it's gone?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] updates_spamassassin_org]# fgrep UNDESIRED_LANGUAGE_BODY *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] updates_spamassassin_org]#
and I apparently made a silly assumption. Didn't notice anything in the
release notes.
> It's been made into a plugin, but
Tim Boyer wrote:
I see that the UNDESIRED_LANGUAGE_BODY test has gone away from 3.0 to 3.1.
Is there another method somewhere for testing for other languages now?
Um, what makes you think it's gone? It's been made into a plugin, but
it's still there.
It's now the TextCat plugin, and works
@pelorus.org>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
X-Rcpt-To:
Skip wrote on Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:57:22 -0400:
> I'm
> pretty sure all they do is stop serving up web pages when you get a in
> CPU exceeded situation. I don't think they'd turn off internal DNS lookups.
Why not? They sure thro
I see that the UNDESIRED_LANGUAGE_BODY test has gone away from 3.0 to 3.1.
Is there another method somewhere for testing for other languages now?
--
Tim Boyer
Denman Tire Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mouss wrote:
Skip wrote:
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
Skip wrote:
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
This could be a DNS problem returning a .2 (positive response) for all
queries.
what DNS are you using for your queries?
On 7/20/2008 4:03 PM, Yves Goergen wrote:
Hello,
I just received an e-mail with the following report:
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:
0.0 URIBL_RED
44 matches
Mail list logo
