On 11/04/2018, 22:57, "Alex" wrote:
> The envelope sender is
>
3ue3owhmjamkzhabyuuhahsbe.qpzhvnthps.jvtytilzadlzalyu@trix.bounces.google.com
> and the SPF-relevant relay IP is 209.85.223.199, so SPF passes. That's
good
> enough for def_whitelist_auth.
trix.bounces.google
Hi,
>> Hi, this message seems suspicious to me (appears to be some type of
>> survey), but I don't understand how it was whitelisted when google.com
>> is not listed among def_whitelist_from_dkim (or at least shouldn't be)
>
> Note that google.com has historically been reserved for Google corporat
On 11 Apr 2018, at 15:28 (-0400), Alex wrote:
Hi, this message seems suspicious to me (appears to be some type of
survey), but I don't understand how it was whitelisted when google.com
is not listed among def_whitelist_from_dkim (or at least shouldn't be)
Note that google.com has historically
Alex skrev den 2018-04-11 21:28:
Hi, this message seems suspicious to me (appears to be some type of
survey), but I don't understand how it was whitelisted when google.com
is not listed among def_whitelist_from_dkim (or at least shouldn't be)
https://pastebin.com/raw/h1370F1F
I'd appreciate any
On 04/11/2018 02:28 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi, this message seems suspicious to me (appears to be some type of
survey), but I don't understand how it was whitelisted when google.com
is not listed among def_whitelist_from_dkim (or at least shouldn't be)
https://pastebin.com/raw/h1370F1F
I'd appreciate
Hi, this message seems suspicious to me (appears to be some type of
survey), but I don't understand how it was whitelisted when google.com
is not listed among def_whitelist_from_dkim (or at least shouldn't be)
https://pastebin.com/raw/h1370F1F
I'd appreciate any clarification on what's going on h
On 10 Apr 2018, at 18:28, Motty Cruz wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org,
That is redundant. The Zen list includes the CBL and Spamhaus has taken
over operation of the CBL so there's no lag time between them any more.
On 04/11/2018 11:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04/10/2018 03:49 PM, Motty Cruz wrote:
I apologize here is the email headers and body
https://pastebin.com/bgXrfKaQ
On 10.04.18 16:28, David Jones wrote:
Content analysis details: (16.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name
Thank you all for your help, suggestions.
per your suggestions MTA and SA tweaked and already seen a huge difference.
Thanks again!
On 04/11/2018 09:14 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04/10/2018 03:49 PM, Motty Cruz wrote:
I apologize here is the email headers and body
https://pastebin.
On 04/10/2018 03:49 PM, Motty Cruz wrote:
I apologize here is the email headers and body
https://pastebin.com/bgXrfKaQ
On 10.04.18 16:28, David Jones wrote:
Content analysis details: (16.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
---
saqariden wrote:
Hi all,
lately i see more and more mails using base64 encoding for the body of
the mails.
example:
[snip]
This is a spam mail, my SpamAssassin did not recognize it as spam, even
if i have rules that can match the decoded body. My question is:
Is it possible to decode into
Hi all,
lately i see more and more mails using base64 encoding for the body of
the mails.
example:
---
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:22:08 +0200
From: ca...@blaha.net
Subject: Marth
X-Originating-IP: 179.96.142.37
X-Sender: ca...@blaha.net
To: xxx...@xx.com
Message-id: <90905a
12 matches
Mail list logo
