On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:08:11 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
But the known-evil addresses aren't the data being protected (however
poorly) - the email addresses from your inbound mail that you're
checking against the list of evil addresses (which may
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:08:11 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> But the known-evil addresses aren't the data being protected (however
> poorly) - the email addresses from your inbound mail that you're
> checking against the list of evil addresses (which may include
> correspondents who don't want
On fre 24 dec 2010 00:55:59 CET, Keith De Souza wrote
How to I modify this so that it is for a range of IP addresses basically
covering the /24 subnet.
trusted_networks 212.74.114.0/24
and adjust score on ALL_TRUSTED, if to much spam pass
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.ht
John Hardin wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >If MD5 is the optimal size then it is the right size to use
> >regardless of vulnerabilities when used in a security critical
> >role.
>
> One of my core points was this _isn't_ a security-critical role. I
> hope you mistyped there, Bob.
I think we are in
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:33:59 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
[...]
To digress, I would suggest the solution to that (and what I wish PGP
had implemented from day one) is to sign using two different
cryptographic hash algorithms (e.g. MD5 _and_ SHA1).
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:33:59 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
[...]
> To digress, I would suggest the solution to that (and what I wish PGP
> had implemented from day one) is to sign using two different
> cryptographic hash algorithms (e.g. MD5 _and_ SHA1). It's extremely
> unlikely that two diffe
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:05:11 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, John Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Keith De Souza wrote:
> >
> >> How to I modify this so that it is for a range of IP addresses
> >> basically covering the /24 subnet.
> >
> > header IP_WL Received=~
Rolf,
> Does it mean http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html needs a
> correction of the score (1) for these tests?
I guess so. Not sure where these scores came from. Anyway, that page
is just a development/testing tool, don't worry too much about it.
What matters is the score in your con
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Bob Proulx wrote:
mouss wrote:
John Hardin a ?crit :
Just out of curiosity, why? An MD5 hash is shorter than an SHA hash
(an important consideration when you're making lots of DNS queries of
the hash), MD5 is computationally lighter than SHA, and MD5 is robust
enough for
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:31:23 +0100
mouss wrote:
> if you're worried about performace, don't hash at all. would you use a
> cesar/base64/... ? either you need security and you use an algorithm
> that's not considered broken, or you don't.
The breaks in md5 would allow an attacker to generate a se
> header IP_WL Received=~ /\[212.74.114.[0-9]{1,3}\]/
Many Thanks John - will hive it a try now.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Keith De Souza wrote:
Hi,
I've got an SA rule that will whitelist and IP address:
header IP_WL Received=~ /\[212.74.114.16\]/
score IP_WL -99
describe IP_WL Allows relays from 212.74.114.16
How to I modif
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Keith De Souza wrote:
Hi,
I've got an SA rule that will whitelist and IP address:
header IP_WL Received=~ /\[212.74.114.16\]/
score IP_WL -99
describe IP_WL Allows relays from 212.74.114.16
How to I modify this so that it is for a range of IP addresses b
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 12/23, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the
nightly masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants
in order to
I failed to mention the only spam I had was what got th
Hi,
I've got an SA rule that will whitelist and IP address:
header IP_WL Received=~ /\[212.74.114.16\]/
score IP_WL -99
describe IP_WL Allows relays from 212.74.114.16
How to I modify this so that it is for a range of IP addresses basically
covering the /24 subnet.
Many Thanks
On 12/23, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
>masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
I failed to mention the only spam I had was what got through spamassassin.
I reject all spam during delivery
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
enable promotion of new rules to the sa-update channel, and to make it
possible to release new versions of spamassassin.
Warren
Hi, Mark,
On 12/23/10 7:44 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Rolf,
running (soon to be upgraded):
SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
running on Perl 5.8.8
I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particularly at the
mouss wrote:
> John Hardin a écrit :
> > Just out of curiosity, why? An MD5 hash is shorter than an SHA hash (an
> > important consideration when you're making lots of DNS queries of the
> > hash), MD5 is computationally lighter than SHA, and MD5 is robust enough
> > for this purpose, even though a
Le 23/12/2010 19:40, Chris Owen a écrit :
> On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:35 PM, mouss wrote:
>
>> do you really think there is a need to list email addresses? if yes,
>> then may be you can define a subset instead of all possible addresses.
>> after all, spammers don't use all possible representations,
Rolf,
> running (soon to be upgraded):
> SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
>running on Perl 5.8.8
>
> I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particularly at the
> following DKIM tests:
>
> DKIM_VERIFIED
>
On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:35 PM, mouss wrote:
> do you really think there is a need to list email addresses? if yes,
> then may be you can define a subset instead of all possible addresses.
> after all, spammers don't use all possible representations, do they?
May not, but they'd definitely start us
Le 14/12/2010 15:28, Marc Perkel a écrit :
> Are there any DNSBLs out there based on email addresses? Since you can't
> use an @ in a DNS lookup - how would you do DNSBL on email addresses? Is
> there a standard?
>
you an still use something like
john@example.com => john.doe._address.example
Le 15/12/2010 00:52, John Hardin a écrit :
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Cedric Knight wrote:
>
>> So a hash is best,
>
> Agreed.
>
>> and I'd suggest SHA1 over MD5.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why? An MD5 hash is shorter than an SHA hash (an
> important consideration when you're making lots of DNS que
On 12/23/10 7:15 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi,
running (soon to be upgraded):
SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
running on Perl 5.8.8
I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particularly at
the following
Hi,
running (soon to be upgraded):
SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.5
running on Perl 5.8.8
I'm new to this list, although I'm not new to SpamAssassin. Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html, and particularly at the
following DKIM tests:
DKIM_VERIFIED
DKIM_POLICY_TESTING
I attempted to calculate more useful scores for all of the SA tests based
on my own corpora. Because individually tuned spam filters work better,
which is why per-user bayesian stuff exists.
I managed to reduce false negatives (spams getting past SA) by 84.6%
without causing any additional false
27 matches
Mail list logo
