On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 20:41 -0400, Alex wrote:
> Is it spam because of your own rules, or something I'm missing? Could
> it be failing DKIM because of my santizing?
>
Spotted in one - its was spam because a local rule triggered on your
munging of some body URIs to contain 'example.com'. This
Hi,
> > I'm curious what people think of this:
> >
> > https://pastebin.com/1XjwaCY1
> >
> My SA setup thinks its spam.
>
> I notice its DKIM is invalid and that the envelope from doesn't match
> the message-ID, which makes me suspicious. Doesn't a $100 draw look a
> little bit too big for a
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:15 PM David Jones wrote:
>
> On 10/11/18 3:30 PM, Alex wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm curious what people think of this:
> >
> > https://pastebin.com/1XjwaCY1
> >
> > It's unsolicited, so that makes it spam to me, but is it dangerous?
> > yesinsights.com appears to be a
On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 16:30 -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious what people think of this:
>
> https://pastebin.com/1XjwaCY1
>
My SA setup thinks its spam.
I notice its DKIM is invalid and that the envelope from doesn't match
the message-ID, which makes me suspicious. Doesn't a $100 draw
i have a maildir of over 2 mails of all ham mails, want to learn all
of them to bayes as ham, so far so good :=)
cd /path/to/maildir/cur/
ls >/tmp/sa-ham
sa-learn --ham --progress -f /tmp/sa-ham
monitoring this on another shell wheree i can see sa-learn begins to use
more and more rss in
On 10/11/18 3:30 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious what people think of this:
>
> https://pastebin.com/1XjwaCY1
>
> It's unsolicited, so that makes it spam to me, but is it dangerous?
> yesinsights.com appears to be a legitimate company, but the sender,
> e...@hrteamerus.com, is a
Hi,
I'm curious what people think of this:
https://pastebin.com/1XjwaCY1
It's unsolicited, so that makes it spam to me, but is it dangerous?
yesinsights.com appears to be a legitimate company, but the sender,
e...@hrteamerus.com, is a registered domain but has no DNS record.
Is it just a lame
On 10/11/2018 01:35 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I for example run spamass-milter with -r 10 (rejects score over 10)
at one machine, and amavisd-milter with "spam_kill_level_maps=>
10", along with postscreen.
This way mail gets refused when listed in DNSBLs, while not when
DNSWL
On 10/11/2018 01:35 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
note that spamassassin can run at MTA level, refusing mail when it's
found to be sure spam and tagging when it's not.
Yes.
That's how and why I recommend that people run SpamAssassin if they have
the choice to do so.
I for example run
An RH bug was opened and closed on this in 2014:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151565
I attached a patch to the bug for the latest sa-update.cron script from
the 3.4.2 RPM to invoke sa-compile if the plugin is enabled and re2c is
installed.
On 10/10/2018 01:56 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
However, in general it's better to use DNSBLs at the MTA level,
which uses a lot less resources than implementing them in
Spamassassin. So try and set them up in postfix first.
On 10.10.18 14:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
I conceptually agree.
However,
11 matches
Mail list logo
