On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:50:11 +0200
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
t...@cagroups.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
Michael Williamson michael.h.william...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that spamassassin can
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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu 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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:55:50 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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,
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu 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 -
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 h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:17:45 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:17:45 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
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 as
Am 24.04.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:38:15 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
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
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.
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.
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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:03:11 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:40:07 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:40:07 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On 24/04/15 14:13, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:12 +0200
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu 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
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
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:20:41 +0100
Paul Stead paul.st...@zeninternet.co.uk 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
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
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
U
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
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 4/24/2015 11:23 AM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:20:41 +0100
Paul Stead paul.st...@zeninternet.co.uk 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
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?
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
