>
> With David's help I have tracked down the problem(s). Version 0.02 is
> up. Would be interested to hear you thoughts - even if just theoretical
> about the affect to the Bayes DB.
Just in theory, i am curious what part of the Bayes filter you hope to
improve? I think you are not adding any *n
On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58:32 +
David Jones wrote:
> Dnsmasq is a very powerful DNS server so I am sure it can be
> configured to do full recursive lookups but this is not a common
> configuration for dnsmasq.
This has come-up before and it can't.
Hi,
We are expecting a problem when emails are coming from our MX2 with the SPF
plugin, because the SPF test is made on the last "Received" IP and not the
first one (as we can expect for a SPF test).
So if the domain is one of our domain, the result is always SPF_PASS when
the email arrived from
On Wed, 25 May 2016 13:05:57 +0200
Support SimpleRezo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are expecting a problem when emails are coming from our MX2 with
> the SPF plugin, because the SPF test is made on the last "Received"
> IP and not the first one (as we can expect for a SPF test).
>
> So if the domain is o
It may come down to my understanding of Bayes and its tokens.. Also
having a bit a problem explaining this concept on paper...
I see this as adding an extra layer to the Bayes:
Consider the following 2 basic emails:
Mail 1:
Viagra
Mail 2:
V1agra
With Bayes:
Mail 1:
Mail 2:
With Concepts
> It may come down to my understanding of Bayes and its tokens.. Also
> having a bit a problem explaining this concept on paper...
>
> I see this as adding an extra layer to the Bayes:
>
> Consider the following 2 basic emails:
>
> Mail 1:
> Viagra
>
> Mail 2:
> V1agra
>
>
> With Bayes:
>
> Mail 1:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:07:37 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:
> Consider the following 2 basic emails:
> Mail 1:
> Viagra
> Mail 2:
> V1agra
Yes, except here's the problem. A drug company might legitimately
talk about Viagra, so that wouldn't be a spam token. V1agra almost
certainly would be a spam t
You are totally right, fixed! Thank you!
2016-05-25 13:24 GMT+02:00 RW :
>
> It sounds like you haven't setup internal_networks and trusted_networks.
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
>
>
On Wed, 25 May 2016 13:05:57 +0200
Support SimpleRezo wrote:
> We are expecting a problem when emails are coming from our MX2 with
> the SPF plugin, because the SPF test is made on the last "Received"
> IP and not the first one (as we can expect for a SPF test).
> Does someone has already notice
On 24 May 2016, at 15:58, David Jones wrote:
Dnsmasq is a very powerful DNS server
LOL. Its man page (see
http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html) opens with
the implied admission that it isn't even a "real" DNS server: which it
isn't. It's a bloatware DNS proxy. For many
On Wed, 25 May 2016, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 13:05:57 +0200
Support SimpleRezo wrote:
We are expecting a problem when emails are coming from our MX2 with
the SPF plugin, because the SPF test is made on the last "Received"
IP and not the first one (as we can expect for a SPF te
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 -0500 (CDT)
sha...@shanew.net wrote:
> So, for those with more experience, what is the preferred way to run a
> backup MX (or two or three, etc.) without losing or breaking the
> benefit of spam filtering?
For small installations, I find a backup MX is more trouble th
In 20 years never saw need for backup mx.
If MX pool is down remote MTA should queue it.
Only practical use I've seen is NoListing setup.
I suppose you might run a server in the Arctic which could lose contact for
weeks and you'd want to ensure no bounces. Ymmv.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May
Am 25.05.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 -0500 (CDT)
sha...@shanew.net wrote:
So, for those with more experience, what is the preferred way to run a
backup MX (or two or three, etc.) without losing or breaking the
benefit of spam filtering?
For small install
>From: Bill Cole
>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:09 AM
>To: SA-Users
>Subject: Re: Odd results when using whitelisting
>On 24 May 2016, at 15:58, David Jones wrote:
>> Dnsmasq is a very powerful DNS server
I meant that it has lots of options and can do some pretty slick
stuff. It can handle
On 25/05/16 15:21, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:07:37 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:
Consider the following 2 basic emails:
Mail 1:
Viagra
Mail 2:
V1agra
Yes, except here's the problem. A drug company might legitimately
talk about Viagra, so that wouldn't be a spam token. V1agra al
On Wed, 25 May 2016 18:10:57 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:
> > Yes, except here's the problem. A drug company might legitimately
> > talk about Viagra, so that wouldn't be a spam token. V1agra almost
> > certainly would be a spam token. Bayes can distinguish between the
> > two; "concepts" cannot.
This thread is so fragmented now I am not sure which message to reply to.
I've now installed unbound and configured dnsmasq to hand its DNS
queries to unbound on port 1053. It looks like I could stop dnsmasq from
doing dns completely (by setting port to 0), but the ClearOS webconfig
interfaces
and what is the problem run a local unbound on port 1053 and just add
"dns_server [127.0.0.1]:1053" to your SA-configuration when one thinks
he is capable to run his own servers?
I've tried looking and failed. Any chance of pointing me to where this
is documented?
I've been using dnsmasq myself on a list server, with DHCP
disabled, and configured to answer only localhost, for caching.
The stock package seems limited to 10,000 entries BTW.
But it seemed fairly bug-free as opposed to nscd, and simple
to setup unlike BIND.
Gladly switch to something else. T
I used the "Authoritative, validating, recursive caching DNS (example
2)" section of this guide: https://calomel.org/unbound_dns.html but
omitted the forward-zone, local-zone and local-data sections and did a
couple of other parameters differently.
On 25/05/2016 21:24, Vincent Fox wrote:
I'
>I used the "Authoritative, validating, recursive caching DNS (example
>2)" section of this guide: https://calomel.org/unbound_dns.html but
>omitted the forward-zone, local-zone and local-data sections and did a
>couple of other parameters differently.
PowerDNS Recursor is very easy to install and
Am 25.05.2016 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Howitt:
and what is the problem run a local unbound on port 1053 and just add
"dns_server [127.0.0.1]:1053" to your SA-configuration when one thinks
he is capable to run his own servers?
I've tried looking and failed. Any chance of pointing me to where this
On 26/05/2016 00:29, Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 25.05.2016 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Howitt:
and what is the problem run a local
unbound on port 1053 and just add
"dns_server [127.0.0.1]:1053" to
24 matches
Mail list logo
