On 20 Apr 2021, at 18:29, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Hmm... No. I disagree. It's not if-one-then-the-other. All that is
> needed to disprove it is one example. And as it happens I can list
> two immediately.
Which does nothing to disprove "most mailing list require subscription" which
is absolutel
Antony Stone wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I was not aware that this mailing list requires one to be subscribed
> > to post to it. Does it? It's not necessary on most technical mailing
> > lists.
>
> I would in fact say the exact opposite: most mailing lists do
> require subscription in order t
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:40:58 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2021, at 18:25, RW wrote:
> I suggested exempting messages hitting ALL_TRUSTED from
> KAM_DMARC_REJECT.
> Matus noted correctly that doing so with external machines in
> trusted_networks could result in "problems" i.e. allowing uns
On Tuesday 20 April 2021 at 23:27:14, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I was not aware that this mailing list requires one to be subscribed
> to post to it. Does it? It's not necessary on most technical mailing
> lists.
I would in fact say the exact opposite: most mailing lists do require
subscription in o
Antony Stone wrote:
> Incidentally, I had no idea what "a pre-mangled address for the web archive
> readers" meant.
You are the second person to mention this, the first in a direct
message to me. Which means there will be many. Sorry. Let me
explain.
Due to too much caution about spammers har
RW wrote:
> I think the question was getting no mail without unsubscribing and
> losing the ability to post. This is useful if you read a list by other
> means, e.g. via NNTP.
I was not aware that this mailing list requires one to be subscribed
to post to it. Does it? It's not necessary on most
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:12:18 +0200
mau...@gmx.ch wrote:
> Hello
>
> Asking for litle help.. Doevecot and sieve are running fine.. One
> thing now, if receiving mail from Users-spamassassin
>
> This mail will by forwarding from sieve to folder spam. I didn't see
> why this will transfer there.
Y
On Tuesday 20 April 2021 at 22:54:29, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:21:57 -0600 Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Don Saklad wrote:
> > > How do you set nomail for the List?
> >
> > To unsubscribe send an email message to this address. Followed by a
> > pre-mangled address for the web archive readers t
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:21:57 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Don Saklad wrote:
> > How do you set nomail for the List?
>
> To unsubscribe send an email message to this address. Followed by a
> pre-mangled address for the web archive readers that hide email
> addresses.
>
> users-unsubscr...@sp
Don Saklad wrote:
> How do you set nomail for the List?
To unsubscribe send an email message to this address. Followed by a
pre-mangled address for the web archive readers that hide email
addresses.
users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org
users-unsubscribe AT spamassassin DOT apache
On 20 Apr 2021, at 7:27, Simon Wilson wrote:
> ...is the correct way to disable it:
>
> local.cf: score RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL 0
Yes.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
On 20 Apr 2021, at 7:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 19 Apr 2021, at 21:28, John Hardin wrote:
...so:
header ALL_INTERNAL X-Spam-Relays-External =~ /^$/
?
On 19.04.21 22:15, Bill Cole wrote:
Actually, what I committed earlier today in my sandbox and will move
to the main rules tree
header DMARC_FAIL_REJECT Authentication-Results =~
/mail\.simonandkate\.net; dmarc=fail \(p=reject/
describe DMARC_FAIL_REJECT DMARC check failed (p=reject)
score DMARC_FAIL_REJECT 6.0
That works fine,
this rule is DMARC testing in OUTbound mail, dont do this :)
***No it is not DMARC testing
On 2021-04-20 14:48, Simon Wilson wrote:
score__KAM_DMARC_POLICY_REJECT 0
score__KAM_DMARC_POLICY_QUAR 0
score__KAM_DMARC_POLICY_NONE 0
score__KAM_DMARC_POLICY_DKIM_STRICT0
... as then the metas will never pass.
any solutions creates another pro
On 2021-04-20 14:35, Henrik K wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote:
rather than change the channel distributed KAM.cf, what needs to go in
local.cf to tell that not to run? *CAN* it be disabled from local.cf,
or can
it only be done by commenting out the entry i
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote:
rather than change the channel distributed KAM.cf, what needs to go in
local.cf to tell that not to run? *CAN* it be disabled from local.cf, or can
it only be done by commenting out the entry in KAM.cf?
It would not make any sense
On 2021-04-20 14:21, Simon Wilson wrote:
header DMARC_FAIL_REJECT Authentication-Results =~
/mail\.simonandkate\.net; dmarc=fail \(p=reject/
describe DMARC_FAIL_REJECT DMARC check failed (p=reject)
score DMARC_FAIL_REJECT 6.0
That works fine,
this rule is DMARC testing in OUTbound mail, do
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote:
>
> rather than change the channel distributed KAM.cf, what needs to go in
> local.cf to tell that not to run? *CAN* it be disabled from local.cf, or can
> it only be done by commenting out the entry in KAM.cf?
It would not make any
On 2021-04-20 13:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 19 Apr 2021, at 21:28, John Hardin wrote:
...so:
header ALL_INTERNAL X-Spam-Relays-External =~ /^$/
?
On 19.04.21 22:15, Bill Cole wrote:
Actually, what I committed earlier today in my sandbox and will move
to the main rules tree if i
They do yes. However I use fetchmail to retrieve emails from some
services; fetchmail presents into the inbound stack as being from
127.0.0.1 - so I do not use the milters' "whitelists" to decide
whether or not to run on inbound email, I use directed flow through
postfix and amavisd to decide whet
On 19 Apr 2021, at 21:28, John Hardin wrote:
...so:
header ALL_INTERNAL X-Spam-Relays-External =~ /^$/
?
On 19.04.21 22:15, Bill Cole wrote:
Actually, what I committed earlier today in my sandbox and will move
to the main rules tree if it doesn't do anything crazy in masschecks:
describ
On 19 Apr 2021, at 11:30, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I understand this as:
if mail was received by internal relay unauthenticated, it's
external,
On 19.04.21 12:49, Bill Cole wrote:
I cannot make SA behave that way.
On 19 Apr 2021, at 13:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
why not?
On
And btw, usually on the DNS infos of Senderscores, you can see about 3
days of lag compared to their online interface, dunno if expected on
their side, or they're facing perf issues, but that service is not a
top priority at all at least
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 PM Simon Bressier wrote:
Hi
>On 19 Apr 2021, at 11:30, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I understand this as:
>>
>> if mail was received by internal relay unauthenticated, it's
>> external,
On 19.04.21 12:49, Bill Cole wrote:
>I cannot make SA behave that way.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:03:55 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wro
- Message from Henrik K -
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:11:41 +0300
From: Henrik K
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: KAM_DMARC_REJECT on internal emails
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Simon Wilson wrote:
25 matches
Mail list logo
