Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Emin Akbulut
To everybody; one of the best online diagnostic tool http://www.intodns.com/nawilliams.com On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:55 PM, wrote: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on 08/23/2010 04:50:39 > PM: > > > > > > Looking at it more deeply, nawilliams.com has three

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Vergottini . Neil
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on 08/23/2010 04:50:39 PM: > > Looking at it more deeply, nawilliams.com has three nameservers (but only 2 > delegations from .com), where two return -all and one returns ~all: > > % dig spf nawilliams.com @beulah.zootsplace.com. > nawilliams.com. 30

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > > The domain in question is nawilliams.com. This is the SPF record: > > > > > > "v=spf1 mx ptr ~all" > Benny Pedersen wrote on 08/23/2010 02:45:07 PM: > > ptr is unsafe to use in spf > > > > ~all means domain owner dont know what thay are doing On 23.08.10 15:25, vergottini.n...@tatravelce

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:25 -0400, vergottini.n...@tatravelcenters.com wrote: > Benny Pedersen wrote on 08/23/2010 02:45:07 PM: > > > > The domain in question is nawilliams.com. This is the SPF record: > > > > > > "v=spf1 mx ptr ~all" > > > > ptr is unsafe to use in spf > > > > ~all means doma

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Vergottini . Neil
Benny Pedersen wrote on 08/23/2010 02:45:07 PM: > > The domain in question is nawilliams.com. This is the SPF record: > > > > "v=spf1 mx ptr ~all" > > ptr is unsafe to use in spf > > ~all means domain owner dont know what thay are doing I figured as much. What I don't understand is why this

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-23 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:23 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote: > I realise that my English isn't that good, but I think what I've > written is pretty clear. Not a native English speaker myself, so there's plenty of room for mis-interpretation... > I never disputed the fact the rules were there. If yo

Re: A lot of Recent Spam is Uncaught by SpamAssassin

2010-08-23 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 20:09 +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: > This email reads: > > {{{ > Subject: Site suggestion: www.careerjet.co.il > }}} > That looks to be worth a local rule along the lines of: header LINK_RQST Subject =~ /(Site|Visit).+www\..+\..+/ if you're getting many of these with a URL in

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-23 Thread si
I realise that my English isn't that good, but I think what I've written is pretty clear. I never disputed the fact the rules were there. If you look at my original post, I say 'turned off', not 'removed'. I never said I wanted them for Meta rules, I asked for best way to turn then back on aga

Re: A lot of Recent Spam is Uncaught by SpamAssassin

2010-08-23 Thread Shlomi Fish
On Sunday 22 August 2010 12:55:43 Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: > > I cannot find any special setting for autolearn (either > > bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam or > > bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam ) in either > > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf or > > ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs . It probably mean

Re: How the hell barracuda behaves?

2010-08-23 Thread Marc Perkel
On 8/23/2010 2:31 AM, Raul Dias wrote: On 08/18/2010 10:14 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: [...] They were discussing ways to reduce spam and I mentioned it. [...] I believe, that 95% of the discussion in this list is about reducing spam in a way or another. -rsd Agreed. Seems to me that any dis

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Vergottini . Neil
Michael Scheidell wrote on 08/23/2010 11:59:06 AM: > you will need to provide more information. > > post ALL the headers, and state which one is the last untrusted received > header. Here is what I see in the Exim reject log. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "last untrusted received hea

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-23 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:05 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote: > > So, no, I guess I'd better not post these trivial rules in public. The > > above hints are a dead give-away already. > > Absolutely not - to do so would be patronising beyond words! Not a dead give-away, you mean? I'm slightly confused

Re: SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
On 8/23/10 11:51 AM, vergottini.n...@tatravelcenters.com wrote: I'm having a problem with SPF soft fail detection for a particular domain that I cannot explain. Emails are being rejected for the domain because emails are being hit with the SPF_FAIL rule, but according to the SPF record, they s

SPF soft fail problem

2010-08-23 Thread Vergottini . Neil
I'm having a problem with SPF soft fail detection for a particular domain that I cannot explain. Emails are being rejected for the domain because emails are being hit with the SPF_FAIL rule, but according to the SPF record, they should be hit with the SPF_SOFTFAIL rule. The domain in question

Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially

2010-08-23 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:16 +0530, Suhag Desai wrote: > After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail > scanning stop working partially. > Below is the setting for local.cf > > rewrite_header Subject SPAM > report_safe 1 > required_score 5.0 > use_bayes 1 > bayes_auto_l

Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially

2010-08-23 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 07:16 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote: > > After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail scanning > > stop > > working partially. > > This is a known bug. > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6419 It is rather unlikely, this would be the r

RE: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially

2010-08-23 Thread Suhag Desai
Still not clear from the link -Original Message- From: Daniel McDonald [mailto:dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:46 PM To: spamassassin Subject: Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially On 8/22/10 9:46 PM, "Suhag Desai" wrote:

Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially

2010-08-23 Thread Daniel McDonald
On 8/22/10 9:46 PM, "Suhag Desai" wrote: > After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail scanning stop > working partially. > This is a known bug. https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6419 -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281

Re: How the hell barracuda behaves?

2010-08-23 Thread Raul Dias
On 08/18/2010 10:14 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > [...] They were discussing ways to reduce spam and I mentioned it. [...] I believe, that 95% of the discussion in this list is about reducing spam in a way or another. -rsd

abstrus warning in maillog

2010-08-23 Thread Andreas Schulze
Hello, I call SA from amavisd-new and found this warning in my logfile. Aug 23 11:36:27 taro amavis[32405]: (32405) _WARN: auto-whitelist: open of auto-whitelist file failed: Can't locate auto/NetAddr/IP/full6.al in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.0 /usr/local/share/perl/5

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-23 Thread si
> here i do > # > # meta to hit on both ABUSE and POSTMASTER missing on sending domain > # > meta RFC_ABUSE_POST (__DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE && __DNS_FROM_RFC_POST && > !USER_IN_BLACKLIST && !USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST && !HAM_LISTED_LOCAL) > describe RFC_ABUSE_POST Meta: both abuse and postmaster missing

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-23 Thread si
> These sub-BL listings still have been used in 3.1.x, no need to dig into > the ancient age of 2.5x. As you said yourself, "a release or two ago". > Why do you now bring up that version? That's the last version I did anything serious with, and version used to produce the system I'm presently rep