Spam from addresses where full name mirrors left-hand side of address

[I tried asking this question a couple of days ago, but I've seen no signs that it made it out to the list -- possibly because the sample e-mail addresses I included in my question might have caused it to be flagged as spam.  So here goes again, this time with the addresses mangled a bit.] I see

Re: This sucks

Hello Bill, On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 03:55:48PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > This is a critical fact. It indicates that your spamd and the spamassassin > script you are running are definitely using different SpamAssassin > configurations, possibly different versions of the SpamAssassin >

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

On 4/1/2018 7:10 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: No, I don't think it's an April Fool's trick though it is possible. They announced this a day or 2 ago. See https://www.cloudconnectcommunity.com/ccc/ls/community/g-suite-feature-ideas/post/6320666165116928 and

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

No, I don't think it's an April Fool's trick though it is possible. They announced this a day or 2 ago. See https://www.cloudconnectcommunity.com/ccc/ls/community/g-suite-feature-ideas/post/6320666165116928 and https://firebase.google.com/docs/dynamic-links/ Regards, KAM -- Kevin A. McGrail

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

@lbutlr skrev den 2018-04-01 22:46: On 2018-02-20 (08:30 MST), Rob McEwen wrote: RE: The "goo.gl " shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response) april fools day :=)

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

On 2018-02-20 (08:30 MST), Rob McEwen wrote: > > RE: The "goo.gl > " shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response) -- Technically, Aziraphale was a Principality, but people made jokes about

Re: This sucks

On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:26 (-0400), Michael Brunnbauer wrote: So let's look at my problem again: running my example spam through spamassassin gets it marked as spam while using spamc+spamd does not. This is a critical fact. It indicates that your spamd and the spamassassin script you are

Re: This sucks

Hello Amir, On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 01:17:03PM -0600, Amir Caspi wrote: > On Apr 1, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > > > > running my example spam through spamassassin gets it marked as spam while > > using spamc+spamd does not. > > I know this is the

Re: This sucks

On Apr 1, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > > running my example spam through spamassassin gets it marked as spam while > using spamc+spamd does not. I know this is the equivalent of “did you plug it in” but... did you restart spamd after rebuilding Net::DNS?

Re: This sucks

hi On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:55:33PM -0500, David Jones wrote: > Can you provide an example message lightly redacted via pastebin.com? I use this message for testing: https://pastebin.com/9h9d62UW The relay IP 185.207.8.210 is in several blacklists but spamd won't notice. spamassassin does.

Re: BODY custom rule not working if text and html parts are different?

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 01.04.18 05:47, Pedro David Marco wrote: This is a problem i see oftenly... what if the URL is only in the TEXT part  and not in the HTML?  many email aplications show those URLs as clickable as if

Re: BODY custom rule not working if text and html parts are different?

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 01.04.18 05:47, Pedro David Marco wrote: This is a problem i see oftenly... what if the URL is only in the TEXT part  and not in the HTML?  many email aplications show those URLs as clickable as if they were valid HTML HREFs when they are

Re: This sucks

On 04/01/2018 11:26 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: hi all, Reindl Harald wrote: but your distribution sucks too when you need to "So I downgraded to Net-DNS-0.83 today and got spamassassin working but not spamd" I don't use a distribution and build everything myself (since I bootstrapped my

Re: This sucks

hi all, Reindl Harald wrote: > but your distribution sucks too when you need to "So I downgraded to > Net-DNS-0.83 today and got spamassassin working but not spamd" I don't use a distribution and build everything myself (since I bootstrapped my system in the 1990ies). I seldom have problems to

Re: This sucks

On 04/01/2018 09:25 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: hi I think I lost quite a few customers in the last months because DNS-lookups are fucked up with Spamassassin so all DNSBL tests won't trigger while not reporting errors. A problem with newer versions of Net::DNS that has been known for months

Re: This sucks

Michael Brunnbauer skrev den 2018-04-01 16:25: hi I think I lost quite a few customers in the last months because DNS-lookups are fucked up with Spamassassin so all DNSBL tests won't trigger while not reporting errors. A problem with newer versions of Net::DNS that has been known for months

This sucks

hi I think I lost quite a few customers in the last months because DNS-lookups are fucked up with Spamassassin so all DNSBL tests won't trigger while not reporting errors. A problem with newer versions of Net::DNS that has been known for months without any consequences - like a new release. This

Re: BODY custom rule not working if text and html parts are different?

On 01/04/18 07:10, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 01.04.18 05:47, Pedro David Marco wrote: This is a problem i see oftenly... what if the URL is only in the TEXT part  and not in the HTML?  many email aplications show those URLs as clickable as if they were valid HTML HREFs when they are

Re: BODY custom rule not working if text and html parts are different?

2018-04-01 2:47 GMT-03:00 Pedro David Marco : > This is a problem i see oftenly... > > what if the URL is only in the TEXT part and not in the HTML? many email > aplications show those URLs as clickable as if they were valid HTML HREFs > when they are not... > We have a

Re: BODY custom rule not working if text and html parts are different?

On 01.04.18 05:47, Pedro David Marco wrote: This is a problem i see oftenly... what if the URL is only in the TEXT part  and not in the HTML?  many email aplications show those URLs as clickable as if they were valid HTML HREFs when they are not... in this case, body rule matches, but uri