On 07/13/2012 09:19 PM, MikeCCSoftware wrote:
Environment: We're running MDaemon Email Server v12.5.6 that has SA v3.3.2
running on a Win2k8 R2 OS.
Problem: We receive an email from one or our vendors with PO's attached. We
have 58 stores we order for so there is 58 emails attached to one single
Environment: We're running MDaemon Email Server v12.5.6 that has SA v3.3.2
running on a Win2k8 R2 OS.
Problem: We receive an email from one or our vendors with PO's attached. We
have 58 stores we order for so there is 58 emails attached to one single
email. Our SA is erroring out when trying to fi
No, I'm not meaning that. I'm instead following the Hardin suggestion, which
works better with mass-check.
I'm suggesting to use CIDR::Lite to avoid being fooled by stuff like
+128.0.0.0/1 +0.0.0.0/1...
Giampaolo
Benny Pedersen ha scritto:
Den 2012-07-13 19:44, Giampaolo Tomassoni skrev:
>
Den 2012-07-13 19:44, Giampaolo Tomassoni skrev:
Our hypothetic plugin could merge together CIDRs via
Net::CIDR::Lite->add()
and get the resultant merged, non-overlapping CIDRs via ->list(),
then count
the size of the allowed addresses (via something like 2^(32 -
cidr_prefix))
and fire rules
> From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
>
> Agreed. I was speculating that multiple variants of SPF_PERMISSIVE
> might be justified, e.g. SPF_PERMISSIVE_ALL, SPF_PERMISSIVE_1,
> SPF_PERMISSIVE_8, etc. However, it is only speculation; I have no
> data to support that level of complexity bei
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 07:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>snippage
If checking for +all is justified then checking for */1 through */8 would
probably also be justified, perhaps with firing different rule so that a
different score could be applied
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 07:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>
>snippage
> If checking for +all is justified then checking for */1 through */8 would
> probably also be justified, perhaps with firing different rule so that a
> different score could be applied.
>
>more snippage
> So does that m
On 07/13/2012 05:47 PM, Thomas Fox wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if there is a list specific to using Spamassasin on
Windows, particularly with Plesk? I know I need to do some tuning,
but Plesk is so odd in how it lays out the files I'm afraid of
breaking something.
As you haven't placed a specific
Den 2012-07-13 17:02, David F. Skoll skrev:
Absolutely. If you do not want to receive mail from a certain
domain and it passes SPF, then there's pretty good evidence the
mail really *is* from that domain and that you can apply your
domain policy.
bingo, if more recipients do this +all will cha
Hi, I'm wondering if there is a list specific to using Spamassasin on Windows,
particularly with Plesk? I know I need to do some tuning, but Plesk is so odd
in how it lays out the files I'm afraid of breaking something.
Den 2012-07-13 16:33, John Hardin skrev:
So does that mean it may be legitimate to treat an SPF PASS as
"something bad" if the SPF rule is defined in an "abusive" manner?
meta __META_DNSWL_ANY (RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI || RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED ||
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW)
meta META_SPF_DNSWL (__META_DNSWL_ANY
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> So does that mean it may be legitimate to treat an SPF PASS as
> "something bad" if the SPF rule is defined in an "abusive" manner?
Absolutely. If you do not want to receive mail from a certain
domain and it passes SPF, then there's
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, David F. Skoll wrote:
SPF has *never* been advocated as an anti-spam measure by the people
who developed it.
Agreed, but that does not mean under certain circumstances it cannot be
useful as a spam indicator.
And looking for +all or ?all is not enough; you can easily s
On 7/13/2012 4:57 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:37:36 +0100
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> True enough. I just wanted to provide a concrete example of extra
>> stuff the plug-in could do and why that could be useful. It hadn't
>> occurred to me until just now that SPF_PASS can
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:37:36 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> True enough. I just wanted to provide a concrete example of extra
> stuff the plug-in could do and why that could be useful. It hadn't
> occurred to me until just now that SPF_PASS can be triggered by
> slovenly and/or careless SPF confi
15 matches
Mail list logo
