Hello,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 07:32:09PM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> I've got to say, between NANOG, SDLU, and SpamAssassin, I see a LOT of
> complaints about Sendgrid.
Also mailop. Have personally received phishing mails through
SendGrid in the last 2 weeks in the name of citrix.com,
microsoft
On 6/26/20 7:01 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
I had a similar event 6/30 and poked them about it via both a public
Tweet & a complaint to Sendgrid. Both entities responded *claiming* that
they were looking into the problem. Assuming that yours also came via
Sendgrid, it might help to add your complaint
On 26 Jun 2020, at 20:44, Grant Taylor wrote:
I received an automated email from Freshdesk about five minutes after
my post to the SpamAssassin mailing list earlier this afternoon.
I had a similar event 6/30 and poked them about it via both a public
Tweet & a complaint to Sendgrid. Both entit
I received an automated email from Freshdesk about five minutes after my
post to the SpamAssassin mailing list earlier this afternoon.
I found an old thread about Freshdesk in the SpamAssassin Users archive
[1]. This supports (confirms to me) that this is what happens.
I object to this type
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 00:46 +0200, Marc Roos wrote:
>
> What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
> that have already been processed by a previous milter.
>
If you've already whitelisted a message and want it to bypass SA, then
you will, by definition, have total conf
On 6/26/20 4:46 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
that have already been processed by a previous milter.
I'm confused. My knee jerk reaction is that's an MTA configuration
issue. But I don't think it can be that simple. I can't think o
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
that have already been processed by a previous milter.
Maybe set a message header and whitelist on this message header?
On 6/25/2020 4:13 PM, Paul wrote:
> I'm running SA version 3.4.4 on a Synology NAS/server (which runs a
> fairly limited Linux install) with 1G of RAM, using its basic
> spamd/spamc setup. I have network tests and Bayes temporarily
> disabled, and no custom rules, and my RAM and CPU are both under
Stephan,
The type for the update record is a TXT not an A record, so dig -t txt
3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org.
I'm not sure if an update has failed for the past 2 days though so this
is just a comment on how to check manually.
;; ANSWER SECTION:
3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 3600 IN TXT
It queries TXT records
$ dig TXT 2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org
;; ANSWER SECTION:
2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 3424 IN CNAME 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org.
3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org. 79 IN TXT "1879105"
It is normal that updates might be stale for a few days sometimes. Use
"
Hi everyone,
Our SpamAssassin rules have not gotten any recent updates (looks like
past 2 days). When investigating, sa-update tries to connect to:
2.4.3.updates.spamassassin.org
When doing a DNS lookup on this hostname it appears to be a CNAME which
points to: 3.3.3.updates.spamassassin.or
11 matches
Mail list logo