On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 02:54 +, RW wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:45:00 +0100
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
The IP address is not registered as belonging to Yahoo.
The message is also missing their DKIM and DK signatures.
OTOH it does have full-circle dns that ends in
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
Return-Path: evan_law...@davidark.net
Received: from web.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com
On 11.11.09 17:15, Charles Gregory wrote:
The 'not from our server' response makes me think that Yahell needs
to update their e-mail response robot.
A
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Dream on. Obviously your a pro-Windows person and anti-Linux
person and you cannot tolerate your image of Windows being torn down.
I seriously doubt Giampaolo is 'pro-windows', and your argument started
with me, thinking that somehow I was
Thanks Bowie,
It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE?
Thanks
Jose Luis
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500
From: bowie_bai...@buc.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
Dear Sir,
Some additional
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE?
Not just to make the SIGCHLD warnings go away. The decision is based on
your email volume and available resources (CPU, RAM, etc.)
Take a look at your memory allocation and swap
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500
From: bowie_bai...@buc.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD
This is just the normal child cleanup. You have set a maximum of 2 idle
children, so when there were 3, it killed one. This
Dear John,
Thanks, now I have the concept more clear about this.
Jose Luis
I'm more clear about this.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:39:08 -0800
From: jhar...@impsec.org
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
CC: bowie_bai...@buc.com
Subject: RE: spamd SIGCHLD
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis
Dear Bowie,
I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm
monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP.
Thanks
Jose Luis
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:42:36 -0500
From: bowie_bai...@buc.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD
Jose Luis
On 12.11.09 10:09, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm
monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP.
grep your spamd log for 'shild' to have some hints how much of childs do you
need.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas,
On 12.11.09 10:09, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm
monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP.
On 12.11.09 16:34, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
grep your spamd log for 'shild' to have some hints how much of childs do
Hi,
a lot of mails end up with this code. Checking through one of them (sent from
outlook
express), probably the Content-type following the MIME version is the only one
that
could be responsible.
Could someone confirm that this is the trouble spot - and how should the header
really read?
Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
And I report this to Yahoo!. They then answer:
We understand your frustration in receiving unsolicited email. While we
investigate all reported violations against the Yahoo! Terms of Service
(TOS), in this particular case the message you received was
On 12-Nov-2009, at 09:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Ops, child of course. Unless you need many spamd processes, you don't need
many spare spamd's.
I see things like:
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBI
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states:
On 12-Nov-2009, at 09:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Ops, child of course. Unless you need many spamd processes, you don't need
many spare spamd's.
On 12.11.09 09:58, LuKreme wrote:
I see things like:
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBI
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there were a total of 31 viruses for System 7 and one
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there were a total of 31
Hi, i've searching all over the net, yet I can't find a solution for the
problem I have. Let me explain it to you: Over the past months, our internal
mail server has encountered some unknown senders and we want to control them
by validating the users that are in the passwd file, can it be done?
At 10:58 AM 11/12/2009, neroxyr wrote:
Hi, i've searching all over the net, yet I can't find a solution for the
problem I have. Let me explain it to you: Over the past months, our internal
mail server has encountered some unknown senders and we want to control them
by validating the users that
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there
Evan Platt wrote:
At 10:58 AM 11/12/2009, neroxyr wrote:
Hi, i've searching all over the net, yet I can't find a solution for the
problem I have. Let me explain it to you: Over the past months, our
internal
mail server has encountered some unknown senders and we want to
control them
by
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I also heard stories of my son doing battle with hackers who had
gotten into his Linux system.
Keep in mind that those were not the Linus-written Linux programs, those
were programs like Telnet, Sendmail, etc. which
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
Thanks Bowie,
It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE?
Thanks
Jose Luis
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500
From: bowie_bai...@buc.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD
Jose
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Dream on. Obviously your a pro-Windows person and anti-Linux
person and you cannot tolerate your image of Windows being torn down.
I seriously doubt Giampaolo is 'pro-windows', and your argument started
with me,
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I also heard stories of my son doing battle with hackers who had
gotten into his Linux system.
Keep in mind that those were not the Linus-written Linux programs,
those were programs like Telnet,
On 12-Nov-2009, at 10:12, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBI
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBII
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBS
spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBSI
spamd[10989]: prefork:
L == LuKreme krem...@kreme.com writes:
L I guess I just don't understand what these various notes mean. II?
L BB? BBSI?
lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/SpamdForkScaling.pm, look for $statestr.
I=idle, B=busy, K=killed, E=error, S=starting, Z=GOT_SIGCHLD (probably
zombie), ?=anything else.
- J
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
PS, if your really the SA porter, thanks for your effort!
easy enough to verify:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=scheidellstype=maintainer
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified
Neroxyr started:
our internal mail server has encountered some unknown senders
and we want to control them by validating the users that are in
the passwd file
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
make sure you are not an open relay, and you want your own users to
have to authenticate to send mail out.
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Adam Katz wrote:
Neroxyr may have been asking something else. Is this regarding mail
*received* from unknown senders? Do you want to check for forged
senders? Do you want to check for invalid recipients?
Forgery can be mitigated with SPF* and/or DKIM
At 04:19 PM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
Do we know the OIP is using sendmail?
The OP has seem to just disappeared (nabble...) but from their post:
using SpamAssassin 3.2.3, milter-limit and sendmail
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Do we know the OIP is using sendmail?
Yes. Here's a quote:
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.2.3, milter-limit and sendmail
Postfix checks local recipients against /etc/passwd and /etc/aliases by
default. It can also be configured to apply the same checks to local
senders
There are several academic viruses for non-Windows systems out there,
plus maybe a few actual ones. The rest are all just exploits and
root-kits that typically don't fall into the virus category.
Non-Windows-based worms are almost exclusive to Apache (and within
that category, heavily favoring
Hi All,
I'm wondering if some know is this is possible to stop using SA. Look.
[r...@cyrus postfix]# telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to cyrus.sat.gob.mx (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mx2.sat.gob.mx ESMTP Postfix
EHLO
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi All,
I'm wondering if some know is this is possible to stop using SA. Look.
MAIL FROM and From: are commonly mismatched in legitimate mail.
For example, every message that you receive from this list (and every
other sanely configured mailing list) will have
If you search the archives of this list you will find a long-winded
discussion of this idea and an explanation of why it is a bad idea.
To make a long story short, you will block lots of legitimate mail
including almost every mail-list type message.
For example, check the Header-From and
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 20:28:51, David B Funk a écrit :
If you search the archives of this list you will find a long-winded
discussion of this idea and an explanation of why it is a bad idea.
To make a long story short, you will block lots of legitimate mail
including almost every
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the
On 12-Nov-2009, at 20:41, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the best stoping
SPAM, and we should look for L7 solution such as Bayes.
I reject the notion that spam is a L7 problem.
--
Ninety percent of true love is acute, ear-burning
On 11/12/2009 10:50 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 12-Nov-2009, at 20:41, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the best stoping
SPAM, and we should look for L7 solution such as Bayes.
I reject the notion that spam is a L7 problem.
It is more
On 11/12/09 9:42 PM ,
luis.daniel.lu...@gmail.com wrote:
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
So, worms like
On 12-Nov-2009, at 21:55, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On 11/12/09 9:42 PM ,
luis.daniel.lu...@gmail.com wrote:
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that
you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer
7
problem that is used to
41 matches
Mail list logo
