On 7/25/2014 6:19 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
You should look at the patch on bug 7068
(https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7068)
Yes, but this is within the code itself. I was referring to how to do this in
a local.cf, for
On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 11:12 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 26/07/2014 03:32, Axb wrote:
> > what's the advantage of such a response method?
> >
> > The idea of separate return codes is to use different rules/scores and
> > different rule descriptions which describe the type of listing
>
> As you
On 26/07/2014 03:32, Axb wrote:
> On 07/25/2014 07:26 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/24/2014 9:42 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Hi, Is there a way to get the return
> code in the generated reports? eg: uridnssub ALT_URI bl.foo A
> 127.0.0.2-127.0.0.11 body ALT_URI eval:check_uridnsbl('ALT_URI')
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:39:46 -0300
Andre Luiz Paiz wrote:
>
> From: val...@iqm.unicamp.br
>There is no whitelist setting for @localhost, unless this is a default
>setting.
But it's not from an address @localhost, it's from val...@iqm.unicamp.br
Hi Kevin,
Thanks, will try this out after lunch and get back to you.
Cheers
Noel
On 26/07/2014 03:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/24/2014 9:42 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> Hi, Is there a way to get the return code in the generated reports? eg:
>> uridnssub ALT_URI bl.foo A 127.0.0.
On Jul 25, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> You should look at the patch on bug 7068
> (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7068)
Yes, but this is within the code itself. I was referring to how to do this in
a local.cf, for example...
Amir
On 7/25/2014 5:55 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
In text/plain with CTE of ‘7bit’ or ‘8bit’ it’s meaningless to use Unicode HTML
entity encodings. It’s obviously not HTML.
If you want Unicode in text/plain, it should be in base64 or quoted-prin
On 7/23/2014 2:27 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
KAM's rules are also helping add a few extra points
I try.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7068
and
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7063
I've also implemented several rules to try and catch these types of
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> In text/plain with CTE of ‘7bit’ or ‘8bit’ it’s meaningless to use Unicode
> HTML entity encodings. It’s obviously not HTML.
>
> If you want Unicode in text/plain, it should be in base64 or quoted-printable
> CTE.
Sure, but these spam
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 13:39 -0300, Andre Luiz Paiz wrote:
> Quoting Adi :
> > W dniu 2014-07-25 14:07, Andre Luiz Paiz pisze:
> > > I received a SPAM that Spamassassing gave a high negative score
> > > (-86.0) to a e-mail message. I believe that is because the spammer
> >
> > Maybe you get -100 f
On 25.07.14 09:07, Andre Luiz Paiz wrote:
I received a SPAM that Spamassassing gave a high negative score (-86.0) to
a e-mail message. I believe that is because the spammer altered the "From:"
header field to: querercrer@localhost
why did you whitelist localhost?
This is exactly what happens w
Am 25.07.2014 um 19:40 schrieb David F. Skoll:
> Google must be using some secret algorithm to decide whether or not to
> be strict.
its simply a bug, but they dont care, spam tagging was reported
with all settings good ipv6 SPF/DKIM/DMARC/PTR
however it might fixed recent or will fixed some day,
On 7/25/2014 1:40 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Google must be using some secret algorithm to decide whether or not to
be strict.
Agreed and/or they've modified things since but as you can imagine, an
rptr/static IP has been best-practice for our firm for at least a
decade, probably going back 16
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:30:43 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> Even with ptr records and static IPs, etc. we had to add an SPF
> record to at least 2 domains in April to get Google to accept the
> email over IPv6. Using IPv4, they did not reject. Not sure what
> triggers, etc. but that's the re
On 07/25/2014 07:26 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 7/24/2014 9:42 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to get the return code in the generated reports?
eg:
uridnssub ALT_URI bl.foo A 127.0.0.2-127.0.0.11
body ALT_URI eval:check_uridnsbl('ALT_URI')
describe ALT_URI URL's domain A re
On 7/25/2014 1:21 PM, Joe Quinn wrote:
On 7/25/2014 1:18 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:34 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
Something we have noticed is that Google blocks email from servers
that use IPv6 but do not have an SPF record.
Really? We have not noticed that. We have a
On 7/24/2014 9:42 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to get the return code in the generated reports?
eg:
uridnssub ALT_URI bl.foo A 127.0.0.2-127.0.0.11
body ALT_URI eval:check_uridnsbl('ALT_URI')
describe ALT_URI URL's domain A record listed in bl.foo ($RETRUN_CODE)
score AL
Am 25.07.2014 um 19:18 schrieb David F. Skoll:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:34 -0400
> Joe Quinn wrote:
>
>> Something we have noticed is that Google blocks email from servers
>> that use IPv6 but do not have an SPF record.
True, Goggle tags mails comming in via ipv6 ,sometimes,
use ipv4 transpor
On 7/25/2014 1:18 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:34 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
Something we have noticed is that Google blocks email from servers
that use IPv6 but do not have an SPF record.
Really? We have not noticed that. We have a number of customers using
us for outbou
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:34 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> Something we have noticed is that Google blocks email from servers
> that use IPv6 but do not have an SPF record.
Really? We have not noticed that. We have a number of customers using
us for outbound relaying and our logs show Google accept
Something we have noticed is that Google blocks email from servers that
use IPv6 but do not have an SPF record.
Is there any value to implementing a similar rule for SA with a
relatively small score?
If your domain does not use SPF, DKIM, or DMARC, you're not even trying
to prevent forgeries.
Hello
> OTOH if someone gets so little spam that they struggle to reach 200,
> does it matter?
I'm just in the course of transferring the mail accounts from the
server where was global bayes (with a lot ham/spam tokens) for an
individual userpref/bayes.
Before bayes reach 200 spam threshold it
Quoting "Kevin A. McGrail" :
On 7/25/2014 8:07 AM, Andre Luiz Paiz wrote:
I tried to use the following rule (from Spamassassing guide), but
it did not worked:
header LOCAL_HEADER from =~ /@localhost/ [if-unset: @localhost]
score LOCAL_HEADER -3.0
- Sample of the email on pastebin.com
- Wha
Quoting Adi :
W dniu 2014-07-25 14:07, Andre Luiz Paiz pisze:
Hi everybody,
I received a SPAM that Spamassassing gave a high negative score
(-86.0) to a e-mail message. I believe that is because the spammer
Maybe you get -100 for whitelist ?
Please check (or pastebin) mail headers (X-Spam*
W dniu 2014-07-25 14:07, Andre Luiz Paiz pisze:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I received a SPAM that Spamassassing gave a high negative score
> (-86.0) to a e-mail message. I believe that is because the spammer
Maybe you get -100 for whitelist ?
Please check (or pastebin) mail headers (X-Spam*) or look in
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:56:10 -0700
jdebert wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot trust that the response received by sa-update is valid.
> > > Is there another method to check for updates?
> >
> > If you really cannot trust *.updates.spamassassin.org DNS responses,
> > you cannot trust *any* DNS response.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:21:42 +0200
Adi wrote:
> I can change To/CC in loop for trained addresses in "mega spam mails".
> Or change To/CC to exam...@example.com before make sa-learn.
Just delete those headers.
> I want pre learning because in the beginning people would be hard to
> get 200 SPAM
On 7/25/2014 8:07 AM, Andre Luiz Paiz wrote:
I tried to use the following rule (from Spamassassing guide), but it
did not worked:
header LOCAL_HEADER from =~ /@localhost/ [if-unset: @localhost]
score LOCAL_HEADER -3.0
- Sample of the email on pastebin.com
- What rules hit already? Seriously,
Hi! http://fumarcachimba.com/_redirect?ewuremj134895
Hi everybody,
I received a SPAM that Spamassassing gave a high negative score (-86.0) to
a e-mail message. I believe that is because the spammer altered the "From:"
header field to: querercrer@localhost. The source domain is:
web3.host-services.com and the message is a SPAM.
Even messages sent fr
Hello
> A token is a word or some piece of derived data. I just means
> that email contained 360 of them.
Thanks for clarify
>> Mail addressed to another person will not be a problem in learning
>> process?
>
> Probably not. It wont make any difference in most cases, but if
> one of those addr
31 matches
Mail list logo
