Re: SA 3.4.1 - error messages in log?

On Sun, 3 May 2015, Mark Martinec wrote: On May 2, 2015 7:08:10 PM Mark Martinec wrote: > May 2 06:45:29 sunshine spamd[22293]: Use of uninitialized value > $hasStructureInfo in numeric eq (==) at (eval 46) line 5520. This one seems to come from a module Geo::IP, called form a SpamAssassin pl

Re: SA 3.4.1 - error messages in log?

> On May 2, 2015 7:08:10 PM Mark Martinec wrote: >> > May 2 06:45:29 sunshine spamd[22293]: Use of uninitialized value >> > $hasStructureInfo in numeric eq (==) at (eval 46) line 5520. >> >> This one seems to come from a module Geo::IP, called form a >> SpamAssassin plugin URILocalBL. >> [...] Tr

Re: dkim invalid and 3.4.1

1.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid The score for this rule should be a zero or a near-zero. There must be some problem with assigning a score to such test rule (the 1.0 is a default value if a score line is missing). T_DKIM_INVALID is a test rule, as such its sc

Re: The query to URIBL was blocked

On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 23:02 +0200, Adam Major wrote: > Hello > > > Seeing this in most of the markups > > > > 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was > > blocked. > >See > > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block >

Re: The query to URIBL was blocked

Hello > Seeing this in most of the markups > > 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was > blocked. >See > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block > [...] > The output doesn't show any blocked DNS servers. If that's

Re: dkim invalid and 3.4.1

On 2015-05-03 5:34, Nick Edwards wrote: Is there any reason reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error" to fail t_dkim_invalid 1.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid This is published a neutral so should not be considered invalid This

Re: dkim invalid and 3.4.1

Am 03.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Nick Edwards: On 5/3/15, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards: Is there any reason reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error" to fail t_dkim_invalid yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and s

Re: dkim invalid and 3.4.1

On 5/3/15, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards: >> Is there any reason >> >> reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error" >> to fail t_dkim_invalid > > yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and so produces false > positives > >

Re: ANNOUNCE: Apache SpamAssassin 3.4.1 available (bug)

Did you run sa-update or install rules manually? 99% sure that is the issue. Regards, KAM On May 1, 2015 2:34:57 PM EDT, Forrest wrote: >Upgrading from a simple 3.4.0 installation, 3.4.1 refuses to start, >with >this error: > >Starting spamd: child process [3723] exited or timed out without >s

interesting spammer trick (bayes)

Hi recently i observed by playing around with bayes-training that some junk (maybe unintentional) is using the mimetype 'application/octet-stream' instead 'text/html' containing the payload of a form with javascript prevets the attachment from tokenizing __

The query to URIBL was blocked

Seeing this in most of the markups 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block I installed Bind9 as a caching name server and AFAICT it's ru

Re: dkim invalid and 3.4.1

Am 03.05.2015 um 05:34 schrieb Nick Edwards: Is there any reason reason="invalid (public key: not available)" is declared as "error" to fail t_dkim_invalid yes, it hits way too often for legit, signed mail and so produces false positives signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signa