>>>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>
> > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
>>> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>>>
>>> > . . .
>> My set up is a little odd in that my pipeline used getmail to r
>>>
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
>> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>>
>> > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a
>> > taste, as I
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>
> > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a
> > taste, as I can follow /
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:34 +, RW wrote:
> A lot of us rely on SA stipping X-Spam-* headers, so header-based
> filtering into a spam folder works correctly. This includes numerous
> mail hosting and freemail providers.
>
Interesting: I've just rechecked this using your last message in this
co
>>>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
>>> after making some SA tweaks.
>>>
>> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
>> received spam, that I use to test my local SA
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote:
>
> > There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers
> > itself.
> Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some
> spam from Evolution by using "File:S
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote:
> There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers itself.
>
Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some
spam from Evolution by using "File:Save as mbox" to capture it as a .txt
file and then feed it into SA as I
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 17:42:34 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
> received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set.
>
> Essentially, all I do is:
>
> 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam
>he
Thanks for that. I wasn't sure which config to add it to.
I now have the following in /etc/default/spamass-milter...
OPTIONS="-u spamass-milter -i 127.0.0.1 -- -s 800"
... which works.
On 28.11.19 16:40, Linkcheck wrote:
Belated thans again to all who helped me with this problem. It has
been running reasonably well since my last posting. I now have only a
couple of minor problems left, one of which (I think) more suited to
the postfix forum.
The other one is max-size. I had
>>>
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
>> after making some SA tweaks.
>>
> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
> received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule se
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
> after making some SA tweaks.
>
I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set.
Essential
Well, here goes, asbestos pants on. I did, honest, do some searching before
asking this.
I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, after making
some SA tweaks.
Basically I have saved the email, which was received as an attachment, as a
text file. Thinking to simp
On 2019-11-28 13:43, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
Assume I want to give extra points to e-p...@pedago.fi? This is our
adress as given on our wesite so many spammers harvest that. I waht to
bump it sligtly, but have been unable to write a regexp that catches it.
Can anyone help?
this could work:
b
Belated thans again to all who helped me with this problem. It has been
running reasonably well since my last posting. I now have only a couple
of minor problems left, one of which (I think) more suited to the
postfix forum.
The other one is max-size. I had gradually uprated this to 800 in
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Philipp Ewald wrote:
Hi Tobi,
we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone (spammer,
other mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to Yes?
but like RW wrote:
If you want to
match on such a header you need to rewrite it before SA sees it.
i
It makes no difference for your network traffic, only SA 4.0 / trunk handles
shortcircuiting and network lookups properly. But sure, marginal CPU
savings..
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:50:31PM +0100, Philipp Ewald wrote:
> Hi Benny,
>
> thanks for your link! ( i did not follow any BOFH Rules fr
Hi Benny,
thanks for your link! ( i did not follow any BOFH Rules from this site ;-) )
i check headers and if "X-SPam-Flag: YES" is set, i write a custom Header from
postfix.
and in Spamassassin i search this custom header in shortcircuit.
It works!
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=98.7 tagged_above
Assume I want to give extra points to e-p...@pedago.fi? This is our
adress as given on our wesite so many spammers harvest that. I waht to
bump it sligtly, but have been unable to write a regexp that catches it.
Can anyone help?
>>> RW 2019-11-28 03:30 >>>
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:59:47 +0100
Tobi
Henrik,
thanks a lot, can confirm your fix works in my tests :-)
Cheers
tobi
Am 28.11.19 um 11:09 schrieb Henrik K:
>
> Fixed:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1870552
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>>
>> Trunk has already many revamps and fix
I never would have found that. Nice job.
Any chance you can create a regression test for the issue ?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 05:09 Henrik K wrote:
>
> Fixed:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1870552
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > Trunk
Fixed:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1870552
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there. It
> seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
>
>
> On Thu, Nov
Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there. It
seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:20:39AM +0100, Tobi wrote:
> Henrik
>
> But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
> _LASTEXT
Henrik
But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
_LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a testmessage.
As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
tests based on that
24 matches
Mail list logo
