On 6/3/24 1:10 AM, Tomohiro Hosaka wrote:
Slight correction.
2024-06-03 07:55 に Tomohiro Hosaka さんは書きました:
Here $rc is dualvar.
https://metacpan.org/pod/DBI#execute
This is not dualvar, exactly.
However, the patch is unchanged.
Evaluated as a bool, it is "0E0" true; evaluated as a number, it
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I now know that validity introduced a query limit wh
On 03.06.24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I
The DKIM RFC
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-8.2
tells us that it is not safe to rely on the DKIM length (l=) tag
and
https://www.zone.eu/blog/2024/05/17/bimi-and-dmarc-cant-save-you/
shows how it can be used to subvert BIMI*.
I am looking at extending Mail::SpamAssa
>
>
> The DKIM RFC
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-8.2
> tells us that it is not safe to rely on the DKIM length (l=) tag
> and
> https://www.zone.eu/blog/2024/05/17/bimi-and-dmarc-cant-save-you/
> shows how it can be used to subvert BIMI*.
>
> I am looking at ex
On 6/3/24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
>> A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
>> turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
>> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matc
On 2024-06-03 at 01:26:31 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:26:31 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
Now for my questions:
*) as is stated in active.list it should not be edited. What's the
correct place to add the new rules to activate them? local.cf?
Yes. In your local version o
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
It is updated where it is actually used, on the ASF rule maintenance
system. It is irre
On 2024-06-03 at 07:05:29 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:05:29 +0100
(BST))
Andrew C Aitchison
is rumored to have said:
The DKIM RFC
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-8.2
tells us that it is not safe to rely on the DKIM length (l=) tag
Never has been safe. Terrible idea
It appears that Bill Cole said:
>Never has been safe. Terrible idea from the start. Never should have
>been included in the specification.
Agreed.
>I was thinking of the same thing in a half-assed way, just catching
>anything using the length tag. I'd bet that correlates to spam but we'd
>nee
10 matches
Mail list logo
