On 10/18/2016 09:08 AM, Sue Mey wrote:
Here is a Printscreen of the Spam score:
printscreen? what happened to good old copy/paste?
Your report doesn't show which rule hit, which is pretty lame nor any
debug data to prove it's an uptodate rule which is hitting.
As their paying user, sugg
Also:
They score URIBL Grey 1.10
but SA's score is
score URIBL_GREY 0 1.084 0 0.424
"whtelisted domain" with that score isn't something SA default SA would do.
If thy can't affford to support the report they show you, why should
volunteers do it? for free?
On 10/18/2016 09:17 AM, Axb wrote:
Spam score details (in lieu of printscreen). I tried GetResonse help first but
they seem stumped as to the reason for this. In the meantime I am just stuck.
Spam Assassin results
description
points
Contains an URL listed in the URIBL greylist
1.10
Sender domain is commonly abused freem
On 10/18/2016 09:28 AM, Sue Mey wrote:
Spam score details (in lieu of printscreen). I tried GetResonse help
first but they seem stumped as to the reason for this. In the
meantime I am just stuck.
... so take your business somewhere else...
with staff which isn't stumped by the tools they use.
On October 18, 2016 2:27:09 AM EDT, Ruga wrote:
>Yes, you can prefix a quoted string to the actual address. No, the
>quoted string is not part of the address.
Indeed.
>There are two approaches here: one is to defend the spammer's abuse of
>the standard (intended to trick the average Joe into b
On October 18, 2016 2:09:37 AM EDT, Ruga wrote:
>RFC 2822 and 5322 are in the "Standards Track".
>RFC 822 is still the standard.
Interesting, but the example is still RFC-compliant, even with 822.
Regards,
Dianne.
Wow.
So sorry I bothered you guys.
-Original Message-
From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 October 2016 09:35 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
On 10/18/2016 09:28 AM, Sue Mey wrote:
> Spam score details (in lieu of printscreen). I tried GetR
On 10/18/2016 10:46 AM, Sue Mey wrote:
Wow.
why wow?
So sorry I bothered you guys.
You didn't bother anyone, otherwise you would have been ignored. 100%
-Original Message-
From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 October 2016 09:35 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subj
On 18.10.16 00:52, Ruga wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
The header line
From: "John Doe "
does not violate the RFC section you linked. It may be unusual, and you
are of course free to personally (!) use it as a spam indicator, but it
is definitely RFC-compliant, so
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:17:31 +0200
Axb wrote:
> Your report doesn't show which rule hit,
The rule description is for FB_CIALIS_LEO3. It's not in the current
rules set.
On 10/18/2016 01:22 PM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:17:31 +0200
Axb wrote:
Your report doesn't show which rule hit,
The rule description is for FB_CIALIS_LEO3. It's not in the current
rules set.
Thanks! Speaks for Getresponse's "Spam Assassin" thingie .-)
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:06:38 -0400
Ruga wrote:
> < does not belong to the author(s) of the message.>>
A Quoted-String phrase is NOT a mailbox. It's just a quoted string
that is not subject to any further interpretation.
Regards,
Dianne.
--On October 18, 2016 at 02:06:38 -0400 Ruga wrote:
>
> >
... unless you're applying DMARC, which says the "From:" should instead
"align" with something other than the author of the message in some cases.
--Joseph Brennan
Sue Mey wrote:
> Here is a Printscreen of the Spam score:
Screenshots are generally frowned on since anyone who might do some
quick inspection and testing can't then copy-paste any relevant
fragments for local testing. Also, attached images bulk up a message
quite a lot.
> Below is the body of m
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Sue Mey wrote:
Spam score details (in lieu of printscreen). I tried GetResonse help
first but they seem stumped as to the reason for this. In the meantime I
am just stuck.
Spam Assassin results
description
points
BODY: Uses a mis-spelled version of cialis.
3.10
Absent
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Kris Deugau wrote:
I saved the message and dug up a copy of the FB_CIALIS_LEO3 rule RW
mentioned; I note that as he said it's not part of the current live
rules, and in fact checking further it looks like it's been commented
out entirely in the rules development sandbox, so
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Kris Deugau wrote:
Sue Mey wrote:
dbg: rules: ran body rule FB_CIALIS_LEO3 ==> got hit: "Calm All is"
(from "NW1826 All is Calm All is Bright")
Try:
"NW1826 All is Calm, All is Bright"
The comma will bypass that rule until GetResponse fixes their systems.
--
Joh
Thank you!
Best Regards
Sue Mey
-Original Message-
From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
Sent: 18 October 2016 06:36 PM
To: spamassassin-users
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Sue Mey wrote:
>
> dbg: rules: ran body rule FB_CIALIS_LEO3
Hi,
I've collected a bunch of URIs that I'd like to incorporate into my
rulebase. I know how to create a DNSBL, but I don't specifically know
how to create a URIBL. Can I use rbldnsd for this? Or would I have to
extract the IP or hostname from the URL, then also use a bunch of uri
rules? If so, is
On 10/18/2016 6:21 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I've collected a bunch of URIs that I'd like to incorporate into my
rulebase. I know how to create a DNSBL, but I don't specifically know
how to create a URIBL. Can I use rbldnsd for this? Or would I have to
extract the IP or hostname from the URL, then als
Alex,
here are some suggestions:
In your rbldnsd-formatted file, put a dot at the beginning, which serves
as a wildcard.
So your three examples:
109 .73 .134 .241
51steel1 .org
amessofblues1 .com
(I added spaces here to evade spam filtering, but those spaces shouldn't
actually be there)
Hi,
> (2) the fact that the IP is in reverse order.
How do you then enter ranges? For example, one of the rbldnsd zone
examples I've seen have entries such as:
1.168.160.0-255
That does not look to be in reverse order, as the host octet is still last.
> foo.example.com:127.0.0.2:Blocked System
Hi!
It seems PYZOR_CHECK rule is not being used in my SA Just installed SA and
Pyzor in a Debian and executed "pyzor discover."In Debian pyzor is enabled by
default so nothing to add in local.cf. Command "pyzor check < emailfile.eml"
works ok.
.. now i try to test SA in debug mode like thi
On 18 Oct 2016, at 23:22, Pedro David Marco wrote:
So Pyzor seems to be OK!... the problem is somehow related to
PYZOR_CHECK rule but why???
Some config file is being loaded that sets the score of PYZOR_CHECK to
0. It is NOT 0 in the current default ruleset:
50_scores.cf:score PYZOR_CHECK
Thanks Bill..
i already did but still no clues...
Files in my Debian SA package (3.4.1) containing the string PYZOR_CHECK:
# for i in `dpkg -L spamassassin`; do grep -l PYZOR_CHECK $i 2>/dev/null ;
done/usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_fr.cf/usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_pl.cf/usr/share/spamassassi
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Pedro David Marco wrote:
Files in my Debian SA package (3.4.1) containing the string PYZOR_CHECK:
Run debug mode and look for the list of config files it's actually
reading. What comes after the default 50_scores.cf?
i have even looked for the string PYZOR_CHECK through
Thanks John...
this is the list:
Oct 19 06:58:33.422 [28083] dbg: config: using
"/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf" for
included fileOct 19 06:58:33.437 [28083] dbg: config: using
"/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/60_adsp_override_dkim.cf
27 matches
Mail list logo
