Help, on some of my machines I constantly get
$ svn update
Arulesrc/sandbox/jquinn
Arulesrc/sandbox/jquinn/20_misc.cf
Urulesrc/scores/scores-set0
Urulesrc/scores/stats-set0
Urulesrc/scores/scores-set1
Urulesrc/scores/stats-set1
Urulesrc/scores/scores-set2
Urulesrc/sc
On 4/24/15 3:52 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
On 4/24/15 2:22 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own
reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes
other than
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
On 4/24/15 2:22 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own reports
to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes
other than downloading new rules. Why is this ha
On 4/24/15 2:22 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own
reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes
other than downloading new rules. Why is this happening?
Everything has been workin
On 4/24/2015 1:10 PM, Forrest wrote:
> Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own
> reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes
> other than downloading new rules. Why is this happening?
> Everything has been working for literally years.
> spam.spam
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Forrest wrote:
Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own reports to
Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes
other than downloading new rules. Why is this happening? Everything has
been working for literally years. spam.spamcop.ne
Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own
reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes other than
downloading new rules. Why is this happening? Everything has been
working for literally years. spam.spamcop.net is whitelisted in both
the system a
n 4/24/2015 1:26 PM, Bertrand Caplet wrote:
Does your Spamd run with -D?
What parameters is it running with?
I don't know why there's so much verbosity...
What's an example spamc call?
> Does your Spamd run with -D?
>
> What parameters is it running with?
Nope, it doesn't :
spamd --create-prefs --max-children 5 --help-home-dir -d --pidfile=/example/
and my local.cf is really short :
rewrite_header Subject *SPAM*
whitelist_from *@genesis.ninja
dns_server 127.0.0.1
ifpl
On 4/24/2015 11:23 AM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:20:41 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:
I've had thoughts of an extension which calculates the number of IP
addresses specified in an SPF record, then calculating the % of
world-wide addresses this SPF declares... I don't seem to be able
On 4/23/2015 4:09 PM, Bertrand Caplet wrote:
you don't privide *any* information like version auf spamassassin, perl,
operating system and so my only hint is "man rsyslog"
Yes, sorry about that.
My versions are :
SpamAssassin version 3.4.0
running on Perl version 5.18.2
I just checked again
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:20:41 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:
> I've had thoughts of an extension which calculates the number of IP
> addresses specified in an SPF record, then calculating the % of
> world-wide addresses this SPF declares... I don't seem to be able to
> bend the Perl SPF module to spit ou
On 24/04/15 14:13, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
thanks for update, nice work
Yes. I wonder how long until spammers use:
v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -all
or even:
v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
I've had thoughts of an extension wh
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:03:11 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> besides that i am responsible for a single domain with currently
> 12000 users and the usernumber don't matter because it don't say
> anything about your insight it's pointless what spammers do and don't
> do
OK.
You essentially said: "+
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:40:07 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
WTF read the thread and context - i just statet "I wonder how long
until spammers use: v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -all" makes
no sense for spammers, not more and not less
It makes
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:40:07 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> WTF read the thread and context - i just statet "I wonder how long
> until spammers use: v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -all" makes
> no sense for spammers, not more and not less
It makes plenty of sense. We filter spam for hundred
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
SA setup will detect such domains and will score mail positively.
Is there something other to explain?
On 24.04.15 16:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
i don't really and everybody who prete
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
SA setup will detect such domains and will score mail positively.
Is there something other to explain?
On 24.04.15 16:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
i don't really and everybody who pretends the opposite should be
quiet in the future when it com
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and how becomes SPF part of the game in case of a throw-away
domain as long as "score SPF_NONE 0" - why in the world should a
spammer add a TXT record to a throw-away domain?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and how becomes SPF part of the game in case of a throw-away
domain as long as "score SPF_NONE 0" - why in the world should a
spammer add a TXT record to a throw-away domain?
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
Ummm a
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:55:50 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> and how does that care a SA setup?
It probably doesn't seriously affect a default SA setup, but I have
quite a few customers who (despite my warnings) knock off a couple of points
on SPF "pass" for any domain.
Also, as someone else menti
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and how becomes SPF part of the game in case of a throw-away
domain as long as "score SPF_NONE 0" - why in the world should a
spammer add a TXT record to a throw-away domain?
Ummm
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 24.04.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> > Spammers often register and use throwaway domains. And check how
> > the exists: mechanism works
>
> well, and how becomes SPF part of the game in case of a throw-away
> domain as long
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> well, and how becomes SPF part of the game in case of a throw-away
> domain as long as "score SPF_NONE 0" - why in the world should a
> spammer add a TXT record to a throw-away domain?
Ummm are you really that unclear on the concept?
On 4/24/2015 9:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:17:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
makes no sense - the spammer don't own the domain in most cases and
if they do then they just don't add a SPF policy
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:17:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
makes no sense - the spammer don't own the domain in most cases and
if they do then they just don't add a SPF policy to use it with
infected clients
Spammers
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:17:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> > v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
> makes no sense - the spammer don't own the domain in most cases and
> if they do then they just don't add a SPF policy to use it with
> infected clients
Spammers often register and use throwaway domains.
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
thanks for update, nice work
Yes. I wonder how long until spammers use:
v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -all
or even:
v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
makes no sense - the spammer do
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> thanks for update, nice work
Yes. I wonder how long until spammers use:
v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -all
or even:
v=spf1 exists:gmail.com -all
Unfortunately, the SPF spec makes it tricky to chase down all possible
equivalen
A. Schulze skrev den 2015-04-23 19:24:
I wrote a little patch for the SPF plugin to detect domains
authenticating any IP by SPF.
thanks for update, nice work
Unfortunately I found also domains not really sending spam use "+all"
¹)
Any comments?
in spamassassin +all will not inhirit whitel
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:50:11 +0200
Mark Martinec wrote:
> >> >> On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
> >> >>> Michael Williamson wrote:
> >> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam
> >> scores fo
31 matches
Mail list logo
