On Sat, February 21, 2009 12:32, mouss wrote:
>> rejecting because HELO does not match violates RFC. case open.
> I said "invalid". a "bare" IP is invalid in helo, and has been since
> 822.
just use all helo rules that postfix can do pr default is better
gives the answer on this one
if i remembe
On Sat, February 21, 2009 02:38, mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my
>> entire ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
> probably a rule that considers "vms173007pub.verizon.net" as a
> dynamic name...
why does a sm
On Thu, February 19, 2009 15:50, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time)
read 25_uribl.cf (google.com is in there)
spamassassin 2>&1 -D -t spammsg | less
see skib domains
> header __NFheader ALL =~ /live\.com/i
> score __NFheader 0.1
> uri __NFuri /www
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Using cpan, trying to install Net::Ident (the other bits except razor were
>> nominal from the same source)
>>
>> Checking for Apache.pm... not found
>> Writing Makefile for Net::Ident
>> cp Ident.pm blib/lib/Net/Ident.pm
>> M
Gene Heskett wrote:
> Using cpan, trying to install Net::Ident (the other bits except razor were
> nominal from the same source)
>
> Checking for Apache.pm... not found
> Writing Makefile for Net::Ident
> cp Ident.pm blib/lib/Net/Ident.pm
> Manifying blib/man3/Net::Ident.3pm
> JPC/Net-Ident-1.2
According to the debug output, you just have the openprotect channel
and not the SA updates channel. Hence, none of the standard rules
exist. Run "sa-update". :)
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:15 PM, oliver wrote:
> This is a clean install on a gentoo hardened box. I'm using SA 3.2.5 and
> have lear
Hi,
I've been googling and trying to figure out why my SA isn't working for
2 days now. I even found a bug report over on the gentoo bugzilla with a
person having the same issue, but no solution
(http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237397).
This is a clean install on a gentoo hardened box. I'm
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> This is a funny case, since the message in question is generated by a
> machine that I would set as TRUSTED. I am the moderator for
> regional-bos...@netbsd.org, and it gets spam, stunningly enough. The
> mail is sent to me over IPv6, and SA
This is a funny case, since the message in question is generated by a
machine that I would set as TRUSTED. I am the moderator for
regional-bos...@netbsd.org, and it gets spam, stunningly enough. The
mail is sent to me over IPv6, and SA appears not to parse postfix's IPv6
received lines. Is anyo
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > > drwx-- 2 gene mail 4096 2009-02-21 10:17
>> > > /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
>> >
>> >
>> > Yup, as I expected. :) Err, remembered from previous discussions
>> > regarding ownership of files with you.
Michael Scheidell a écrit :
> (well, lots of them do, someone send blackberry a copy of the RFC's?)
>
> one of our users keeps blocking emails from blackberry users due to this:
> blackberry server does a 'helo 67.223.83.81' in violation of RFC's
are you sure? This is rejected at smtp level in m
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> [snip]
>>
>> Are
>> - iol.cz
>> - telenet.cz
>> - hotelulipy.cz
>>
>> the same organisation?
>
>> if not, this is direct to MX junk.
>
> ...your presumption that the Received: header is the only one is false.
>
I didn't presume that. I was only looking at that
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>>> On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
>> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
> I'm
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
>> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
>>
>
> I'm not rejecting "your ISP". I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
> com
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Fedora 8. What packages should I install?
>
I use spamc/spamd with Fedora 8. If your system has been kept fully
updated you should see this:
# yum list perl spamassassin
Installed Packages
perl.i386 4:5.8.8-41.fc8 i
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 12:28 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Thank you Karsten, I'll take a break now. Till my next question...
You're welcome. I should do the same. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0;
> > > drwx-- 2 gene mail 4096 2009-02-21 10:17
> > > /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
> >
> > Yup, as I expected. :) Err, remembered from previous discussions
> > regarding ownership of files with you. ;)
> >
> > Let me take a guess. You ran sa-update as root?
>
> Gu
> > That's how you can investigate the Bayes tokens for the messages that
> > score neutral, despite learning. Isn't that what you asked for?
>
> Something like that. I interpreted that as to expand the headers with a more
> verbose line. I just checked a recently treated (and cleared) incoming
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 12:10 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > > [28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: Net::Ident ('require' failed)
>> >
>> > Only used by spamd, optional. If you p
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 12:10 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > [28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: Net::Ident ('require' failed)
> >
> > Only used by spamd, optional. If you plan to use the --auth-ident option
> > to spamd, you will nee
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 11:46 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > > I have also fed probably 100 megabytes of 200 byte viagra/c
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 11:20 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > > gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
>> >
>> > ls -ld /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
>>
>> drwx-- 2 gen
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> From an sa-update -D:
>
>According to a quick grep, initially to verify my recollection of the
>IP::Country usage, turns out I did remember correctly...
>
>And M::SA::Util::Dependency
(well, lots of them do, someone send blackberry a copy of the RFC's?)
one of our users keeps blocking emails from blackberry users due to this:
blackberry server does a 'helo 67.223.83.81' in violation of RFC's (when
it should at LEAST do a helo [67.223.83.81])
Spamassassin score (correctly) thi
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 11:46 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I have also fed probably 100 megabytes of 200 byte viagra/cialis type
> > > messages to sa-learn, and the bayes score i
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 11:20 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
> > ls -ld /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
> drwx-- 2 gene mail 4096 2009-02-21 10:17
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-key
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> [28466] dbg: gpg: calling gpg
>> gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
>> `/etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys'
>>
>> What perms are supposed to be set there?
>
>What perms do y
On Saturday 21 February 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>ls -ld /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
drwx-- 2 gene mail 4096 2009-02-21
10:17 /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
Thanks
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo
Using cpan, trying to install Net::Ident (the other bits except razor were
nominal from the same source)
Checking for Apache.pm... not found
Writing Makefile for Net::Ident
cp Ident.pm blib/lib/Net/Ident.pm
Manifying blib/man3/Net::Ident.3pm
JPC/Net-Ident-1.20.tar.gz
/usr/bin/make -- OK
Warni
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> From an sa-update -D:
According to a quick grep, initially to verify my recollection of the
IP::Country usage, turns out I did remember correctly...
And M::SA::Util::DependencyInfo.pm is your friend. Nice module. :)
> [28466] dbg: diag: m
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 10:30 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> [28466] dbg: gpg: calling gpg
> gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
> `/etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys'
>
> What perms are supposed to be set there?
What perms do you have?
# ls -ld /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys
> I
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 03:56 +, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I have a message in hand that is triggering false positives based on the
> ratware rules in 3.2.4.
>
> The specific headers are:
>
> Message-ID:
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838
Sounds like bug 5962 and it's friends.
From an sa-update -D:
[28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: IP::Country::Fast ('require' failed)
[28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: Razor2::Client::Agent ('require'
failed)
[28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: Net::Ident ('require' failed)
[28466] dbg: diag: module not installed: Mail
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 11:37 +, Nathan wrote:
> I have running sa-update out of my weekly cron since you guys told me
> how to, early last year!! I noticed things aren't as good as they
> were.. so ran the sa-update -D and noticed that there was a few
> things that said failed, and the date
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Nathan wrote:
> I have running sa-update out of my weekly cron since you guys told me
> how to, early last year!! I noticed things aren't as good as they
> were.. so ran the sa-update -D and noticed that there was a few things
> that said failed, and the date stamps did
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
If there were two rules checking for exactly the same thing, both scoring
2.5 (we'd wonder if they has different score, right?), their combination
would score 5.0, while meta rule matching both of them would get -2.5.
Can someone please try to do
meta RCVD_HELO_N
> > On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
> >> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> >>> On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
> >>> I'm not rejecting "your ISP". I'm re
> >> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>> I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
> >>> problem - invalid HELO.
> >>>
> >>> * 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but
> >>> should
> >>> * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address
Hi all,
I have running sa-update out of my weekly cron since you guys told me
how to, early last year!! I noticed things aren't as good as they
were.. so ran the sa-update -D and noticed that there was a few
things that said failed, and the date stamps didn't alter on
updates_spamassassin_o
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>>> On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
>>> I'm not rejecti
On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> > On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
> >> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
> >
> > I'm not rejecting "your ISP". I'm rejecting ma
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
>> ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
>
> I'm not rejecting "your ISP". I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
> complain bac
42 matches
Mail list logo
