On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
>
> I resisted answering at first, because I'm perhaps a bit too cynical:
>
> The way to appe
SM wrote:
There is a reason the updates are signed. You can either try and figure
out the right way or you can wait for someone to compromise one of the
endpoints to deliver illegitimate updates.
Pardon me for putting words in someone's mouth, but I got the impression
that the original poste
At 14:10 05-09-2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, it is a 1000 times easier to just do
$ sa-update --nogpg
As it's 1000 times easier to disable the firewall to solve user issues.
than to try to figure our the right way from the messages that
surround "channel: GPG validation failed, cha
"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
I resisted answering at first, because I'm perhaps a bit too cynical:
The way to appeal is to file a bug with spamassassin saying that
senderbase is bogus and ask t
We are currently receiving lots of password phishing mails with
envelope sender and From: header
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The connecting mail servers
que41.charter.net[209.225.8.24]
que51.charter.net[209.225.8.25]
do apparently *not* stop re-connecting aft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, it is a 1000 times easier to just do
$ sa-update --nogpg
than to try to figure our the right way from the messages that
surround "channel: GPG validation failed, channel failed", or the
sa-update man page, or writing this group and asking what to do. So
there, t
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, it is a 1000 times easier to just do
$ sa-update --nogpg
than to try to figure our the right way from the messages that
surround "channel: GPG validation failed, channel failed", or the
sa-update man page, or writing this group and asking wh
You know, it is a 1000 times easier to just do
$ sa-update --nogpg
than to try to figure our the right way from the messages that
surround "channel: GPG validation failed, channel failed", or the
sa-update man page, or writing this group and asking what to do. So
there, the result is gpg is defeate
Hi Michele,
At 03:27 05-09-2008, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Our main issue wasn't with the listing but with the total lack of
appeals procedure or delisting, as several large corporates seem to
trust Senderbase and block based on its score
The "industry's most accurate reputation syste
>
> Yup. That's why I send a 250 - SPAM - discarded. That way, the
> spammers think they have delivered the mail, and go on to the next
> victim
> --
> Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX
> Austin Energy
Dan
Using which server software?
Are you /dev/null or reject while send
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 18:56 +0200, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
> We are currently receiving lots of password phishing mails with envelope
> sender and From: header
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Reply-To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The connecting mail servers
> que41.charter.net[209.225.8.24]
> que51.charter.ne
We are currently receiving lots of password phishing mails with envelope
sender and From: header
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The connecting mail servers
que41.charter.net[209.225.8.24]
que51.charter.net[209.225.8.25]
do apparently *not* stop re-connecting after receiving R
patrickbaer wrote:
Dear Lord, I am going nuts! I promised my colleagues a new filter three days
ago. Now they are drowning in spam and I have no idea about what's going on!
I have this test-machine with a fresh installation of postfix, spamassassin
and amavisd and it works like a charme. I hav
McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 06:18 -0700, patrickbaer wrote:
>
>> Now on the crappy live box, absolutely NOTHING works as it should. I just
>> tried, in my despair, to apply a custom rule, but no way it will accept
>> them! Added it to local.cf, no work. Added a new file to
>
Hi,
The obvious answer is to look at what is different between the two boxes.
You then need to work out which bit of the email pathway is not working.
It might be that spamassassin is working like a charm, but some other
part of the chain is not doing its job.
You should understand that spa
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 06:18 -0700, patrickbaer wrote:
> Now on the crappy live box, absolutely NOTHING works as it should. I just
> tried, in my despair, to apply a custom rule, but no way it will accept
> them! Added it to local.cf, no work. Added a new file to
> /var/lib/spamassassin.../20_test.
Dear Lord, I am going nuts! I promised my colleagues a new filter three days
ago. Now they are drowning in spam and I have no idea about what's going on!
I have this test-machine with a fresh installation of postfix, spamassassin
and amavisd and it works like a charme. I have a catch rate of no
No.
If I not embed it in an exe file I would need to install ActiveState-Perl and
SpamAssassin together with my application.
And I don't like to install a complete runtime environment (16mb setup) if it
can be done with one exe file (4mb).
So it is better for us to create a new exe file, say twi
> From: Harald Binkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:10 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: SpamAssassin for windows
>
> Hi @all,
>
> we are searching for some who will continue part of the work from the
> sourceforge project http:
Hi,
Do you want to disable the AWL or just delete the entries?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html
To disable the autowhitelist completely put the following line in your
local.cf file (usually in /etc/mail/spamassassin)
use_auto_whitelist 0
Then r
Hi Anthony,
I agree. But how can I delete this auto-whitelist? I found two of them in
/root/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist and
/var/amavis/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.
I even disabled it in /etc/mail/spamassassin/v310.pre
No avail. :(
Anthony Peacock wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure what you
Hi,
I am not sure what you think the problem is. If you are refering to the
different scores then that is to be expected as the two systems are
using different auto-whitelist databases and will probably have
different data in them.
patrickbaer wrote:
I have now came down to a problem with
I have now came down to a problem with the auto whitelist:
See the test machine:
[4998] dbg: auto-whitelist: tie-ing to DB file of type DB_File R/W in
/root/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist
[4998] dbg: auto-whitelist: db-based [EMAIL PROTECTED]|ip=190.173
scores 5/61.821
[4998] dbg: auto-whitelist:
patrickbaer wrote:
And this is the output from the very same command, ran on the test box:
The command might be the same, but the message was not. There are
important differences in the headers (see below).
Only one of the messages had any "Received:" headers, wich can
make a big differenc
Joseph
Thanks :)
Our main issue wasn't with the listing but with the total lack of
appeals procedure or delisting, as several large corporates seem to
trust Senderbase and block based on its score
Thanks again
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand
On 4 Sep 2008, at 15:49, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
I think senderbase is automatic.. You start spamming, you get on the
list.
You stop spamming, (eventually) you get off the list.
You must be new to the 'net', so you get one
RobertH wrote:
Ok mouss lets try this
I forward some email accounts of other domains I do not own with .forward
files on those *nix boxen
I have them forward to an email address I have in the abbacomm.net domain
and of course we run spamassassin.
That's what I understood. I have similar acco
27 matches
Mail list logo
