On 10-Mar-2009, at 17:24, LuKreme wrote:
On 10-Mar-2009, at 17:11, LuKreme wrote:
I moved aside the spamd.sh file in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ and
reinstalled SA again. No new spamd.sh was installed.
Ah.. well, it installed a startup script named sa-spamd
well, that's better at least.
Well, the
LuKreme wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:49:31 -0600:
> er... not sure, I installed from ports ages ago.
and which SA version is it then?
> /usr/local/virtual/.spamassasin and the files therein are all owned by
> the virtual mail account.
virtual mail account? How can a *virtual* mail account be
> LuKreme wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:49:31 -0600:
>
>> er... not sure, I installed from ports ages ago.
>
> and which SA version is it then?
>
>> /usr/local/virtual/.spamassasin and the files therein are all owned by
>> the virtual mail account.
>
> virtual mail account? How can a *virtual* mail
Marc Perkel wrote:
So - making any progress? :)
Yes, indeed. I am currently rewriting my code to be more generic and
cleaner (you wouldn't want to see my initial poc code^^). Once I'm done
with that, I can quickly repeat some of the experiments on other mail
sets, such as the one that Justin
> From: LuKreme
> Not *A* virtual mail account, *the* virtual mail account;
> that is, the account that owns /usr/local/virtual and all the
> files and directories in it.
>
LuKreme,
it appeared to me that you were setup as vpopmail UID aka *user*
in administration, as you well know, you als
John Hardin wrote:
Chris:
Do you have any interest in writing an offline tool that generates
static metarules based on the SA log and FP/FN corpa, as I mentioned?
Running some experiments for this kind of tool is at least on my todo
list :) I don't know however, when I will have time to do
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 16:34, decoder wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> Chris:
>>
>> Do you have any interest in writing an offline tool that generates static
>> metarules based on the SA log and FP/FN corpa, as I mentioned?
>
> Running some experiments for this kind of tool is at least on my tod
I have user mail being sent from my domain to my domain flagging as
spam. that's ok really. It's what's making it flag as spam that's
bugging me - SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.659 tagged_above=-999 required=4.3
tests=[DYN_RDNS_SHORT_HELO_HTML=0.287, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001,
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
since it's from me TO me that implies my spf is wrong.
My SPF (aka TXT) record is currently set to (per nslookup):
example.com text = "v=spf1 a mx ptr"
What's wrong with that? the MX record comes back as the mail server.
Where are yo
On 11-Mar-2009, at 09:34, RobertH wrote:
ls -axl
on all those subdirectories, what do you see ?
drwx--6 vpopmail postfix512 Feb 11 2005 as...@example.com
$ ls -axl /usr/local/virtual/ash...@example.com/
total 16
drwx-- 6 vpopmail postfix 512 Feb 11 2005 .
drwxr-xr-x 9
On 11-Mar-2009, at 13:16, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
example.com text = "v=spf1 a mx ptr"
mine looks like:
example.com TXT "v=spf1 a mx ptr ~all"
have you tried http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html (or similar)?
--
There's nothing to do, so you just stay in bed [ah, poor thing
I suggested to read up on "sitewide bayes". Did you?
> ls -axl /usr/local/virtual/ash...@example.com/
This stuff is not of interest to SA at all. The bayes db and the AWL is.
If you cannot change ownership of that directory or of the db files, you
have to move them elsewhere. Cut the connection
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:16 -0400, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
> v=spf1 a mx ptr
Interesting: I just pointed thre SPF testing tools at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html at sinister.net. That
retrieved:
spf1 ip4:75.180.132.0/24 mx include:aspmx.googlemail.com
include:mail.zoneedit.com
On 11-Mar-2009, at 17:20, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:16 -0400, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
v=spf1 a mx ptr
Interesting: I just pointed thre SPF testing tools at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html at sinister.net. That
retrieved:
spf1 ip4:75.180.132.0/24 mx incl
Interesting, but, the domain I'm asking about isn't sinister.net :-)
My current guess is that when the mail processes into amavis, when
send from local <> local (all on the same server) the email comes
from localhost, triggers SA, localhost isn't in the SPF record, and
thus triggers the SPF_N
15 matches
Mail list logo
