On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Alex wrote:
I suggested converting the rawbody rule John was working on into a
redirector_pattern
Note that the following rule as posted by John:
uri __GOOG_MALWARE_DNLD
m;^https?://[^/]*\.google\.com/[^?]*url\?.*[\?&]download=1;i
would not currently work as a redirec
On Dec 17, 2015, at 13.16, Alfredo Saldanha wrote:
>
> My second SA is a Zimbra server.
> I use Zimbra SA only to drop the message in junk folder.
> I don't want to clean at the Zimbra server, it is default behavior.
for what it's worth, if you were to use amavis rather than a milter, you could
Hi,
>>> I suggested converting the rawbody rule John was working on into a
>>> redirector_pattern
>>
>>
>> Note that the following rule as posted by John:
>>
>> uri __GOOG_MALWARE_DNLD
>> m;^https?://[^/]*\.google\.com/[^?]*url\?.*[\?&]download=1;i
>>
>> would not currently work as a redirector
On 18/12/15 14:23, Mark Martinec wrote:.
The parameter of redirector_pattern is a regular expression,
dots and a question mark have a special meaning in a regexp.
Oops I had escaped characters and anchors, in my numerous iterations
testing I guess they got lost
... and please open a bug re
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Axb wrote:
On 12/18/2015 04:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
> could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected
> target can be looked up via URIBL plugin?
Isn't this already the case? Redirect targets are added
to a list
too suspicious.
It's already there as a subrule for masscheck eval and use in metas:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20151218-r1720729-n/__GOOG_REDIR/detail
SPAM% HAM%S/O
0.3357 0.0288 0.921
~12% of spam hits are at <5 points.
It's meta'd for score in a couple o
On 12/18/2015 11:32 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Mark Martinec wrote:
On 2015-12-18 16:29, Axb wrote:
On 12/18/2015 04:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
> > could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the
redirected
> > target can be lo
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Mark Martinec wrote:
On 2015-12-18 16:29, Axb wrote:
On 12/18/2015 04:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
> > could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected
> > target can be looked up via URIBL plugin?
>
> Isn't this alr
made for http only.
> Adding and commiting s? now
And this in my sandbox, with a different pattern:
uri __GOOG_MALWARE_DNLD
m;^https?://[^/]*\.google\.com/[^?]*url\?.*[\?&]download=1;i
I will broaden that a bit.
could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected tar
On 2015-12-18 16:29, Axb wrote:
On 12/18/2015 04:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected
target can be looked up via URIBL plugin?
Isn't this already the case? Redirect targets are added
to a list of URIs
On 12/18/2015 04:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected
target can be looked up via URIBL plugin?
Isn't this already the case? Redirect targets are added
to a list of URIs and are subject to same rules as
On 2015-12-17 22:41, Axb wrote:
could you make a version using redirector_pattern so the redirected
target can be looked up via URIBL plugin?
Isn't this already the case? Redirect targets are added
to a list of URIs and are subject to same rules as
directly collected URIs.
Mark
On 2015-12-18 11:19, Paul Stead wrote:
After the messages last night I've been looking into the
redirector_pattern config option - I'm seeing weird results...
Given the redirector_pattern of:
redirector_pattern m'https?://www.google.com/url?q=([^&]+).*'i
I've noticed that spamassassin can some
After the messages last night I've been looking into the
redirector_pattern config option - I'm seeing weird results...
Given the redirector_pattern of:
redirector_pattern m'https?://www.google.com/url?q=([^&]+).*'i
I've noticed that spamassassin can sometimes miss - I don't think it's
to do wi
On 12/18/2015 10:58 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think clamav is a very good virus scanner, but see more and more fokus
on clamav begins to make spamscanning and reject of valid mails for
maillists, i think its more time to think about it again ?
same fault maked in amavisd-new :(
Some third pa
i think clamav is a very good virus scanner, but see more and more fokus
on clamav begins to make spamscanning and reject of valid mails for
maillists, i think its more time to think about it again ?
same fault maked in amavisd-new :(
16 matches
Mail list logo