RW wrote:
I couldn't find a single serious link about this on Google, just further
oddball bloggers and forum posters, many of whom admitted that they had
previously emailed the Whitehouse.
how about cbs news? and if this is a non event, why did the whitehouse
make policy changes to
Bob Proulx wrote:
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
[96.254.126.11] by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if
Charles Gregory wrote:
When you compare the hits on a message, is there any difference in BAYES?
On 17.08.09 12:23, Kristina wrote:
Unfortunately, no: in fact, Bayes was often the only thing that was
hitting in 3.2.5.
This may be the problem. Are the rule directories accessible/readable by
On 17.08.09 20:33, Matt Kettler wrote:
You can also set your min_cf in your razor config files, which will
affect when the RAZOR2_CHECK rule fires. This does work in SpamAssassin,
as I have over-ridden the min_cf on my own system, and have done so for
years.
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 09:52
Greetings;
One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my importation
of that key. Several times.
How should I proceed?
Thanks.
--
Cheers, Gene
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Ed Howdershelt
Bob Proulx wrote:
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
[96.254.126.11] by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do user unknown rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach RBL, and neither do unknown, as long
as you specify the right order in the
On 17-Aug-2009, at 06:38, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
Nope. Only one query to the local spamhaus zone is performed:
http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#hangup
Oooo, NICE. I'm implementing that right now.
--
Lister: What d'ya think of Betty? Cat: Betty Rubble? Well, I would
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
assigned?
Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
Of course it's much better to have personalised DNS name
hi all!
i'm trying to use spamassassin with SQL. when i start spamd -D -q i
obtain: (spamassassin 3.2.5)
[3492] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all
[3492] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG
[3492] dbg: logger: trying to connect to syslog/unix...
[3492] dbg: logger: opening syslog with unix
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
assigned?
On 18.08.09 16:51, Per Jessen wrote:
Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
there is - if
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:51:46 +0200
Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
assigned?
Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of
Hi,
I notice that there are no rules updates for 3.2.5 since about
2009-07-21, with the latest version shipped being 795855. FWIW, I
queried different DNS servers in different networks to forestall stale
DNS cache data for the number, but uniformly got this result.
The daily QA testing pages,
Hi Toni,
If you go to here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
(web interface for the source repository)
you will find that
sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
update release for 3.2
795855 -is- the latest rules release for 3.2.5
If you
Hi Ted,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 11:06:32 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
you will find that
sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
update release for 3.2
795855 -is- the latest rules release for
LuKreme wrote:
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do user unknown rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach RBL, and neither do unknown, as long
as you specify the right
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi Ted,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 11:06:32 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/tags/
you will find that
sa-update_3.2_20090720142344/ 795855 4 weeks jm tagging latest
update release for 3.2
795855 -is- the
Hi,
On Tue, 18.08.2009 at 12:06:30 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Toni Mueller wrote:
Understood. FWIW, (not only) I need newer rules because the current
rules are becoming ineffective at a fast pace.
Of course, but what do you want to say with that? From my experience
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 20:02 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 17-Aug-2009, at 04:24, Ned Slider wrote:
Question - in Postfix do user unknown rejections still incur a dns
RBL lookup, or does the rejection occur before reject_rbl_client?
HELO/EHLO rejections do not reach
Toni Mueller wrote:
I'm open to ideas about what else to do.
For me, the Sought rules catch more than anything other than the Zen
blacklist.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules
--
Bowie
[ off topic ]
On 8/18/2009 1:00 PM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Apart from not understanding flynn, I think I get what you want to
An famous old saying, in reference to Error Flynn [1], the
swashbuckling, Aussie-American actor, meaning everyhing is OK [2].
[1]
On 18-Aug-2009, at 14:22, Mike Cappella wrote:
Error Flynn
this made me laugh, thanks.
--
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as
the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 06:40 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my importation
of that key. Several times.
How should I proceed?
General advice: Post the error messages. Do a debug run. Post the
relevant parts of the debug info.
Gene --
Bob Proulx a écrit :
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [96.254.126.11]
by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if
Marc Perkel a écrit :
http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html
It appears from Jeff's Blacklists Compared list the Barracuda has
overtaken spamhaus for the #1 position. Not sure about the accuracy of
the list as compared to spamhaus but seams reasonably good to me. I
don't really count apews
Hello,
I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a CentOS
5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being called from
amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
I don't want my outgoing emails scanned, i read spamassassin can be
configured by
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Dave wrote:
Hello,
I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a
CentOS 5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being
called from amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
I don't want my outgoing emails scanned, i read spamassassin
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 19:09 -0400, Dave wrote:
Hello,
I'm a new user of spamassassin. I'm using version 3.2.5 on a CentOS
5.3 machine with postfix 2.3 as the MTA. Spamassassin is being called from
amavisd-new version 2.6.4 to scan all messages.
I don't want my outgoing emails
On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 06:40 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
One of the channels I use, yerp, has a failing gpg key despite my
importation of that key. Several times.
How should I proceed?
General advice: Post the error messages. Do a debug run.
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 01:06 +0200, mouss wrote:
...
in short, whatever jeff says, spamhaus is the one. the fundamental
concept is not how many spam it blocks, but how much do I trust it.
Exactly!
Michael Scheidell wrote:
if this is a client of yours, you might help them get a VALID RDNS and
setup the FQDN for their mail server.
(more likely, its a zombie spambot anyway, )
Not related to me in any way. The mail message generated from there
was legitimate. It came *to* a client of
31 matches
Mail list logo
