seem to be from 'debora@'
Hamish.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFUbOh/3QXwQQkZYwRAjNXAKCDnl6PLVwpsdWbay5sDEkaOOxQegCdHVKL
ptux54hbywk8q+5L6lLG+/Q=
=G2tw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Thursday 17 August 2006 20:53, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Hamish wrote:
> > > > Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I
> > Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I've created
> >> sa-update channels for all of the rules found at the SpamAssassin Rules
> >> Emporium website (http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm).
I just noticed this titbit...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> I'm not sure what you've done there, I didn't realise it was
> possible to mix collation types in the same table. Have you checked
> that all tables are the same type? MyISAM or Inno? If they are all
> the same, I'd be inclined
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> I'm not sure what you've done there, I didn't realise it was
> possible to mix collation types in the same table. Have you checked
> that all tables are the same type? MyISAM or Inno? If they are all
> the same, I'd be inclined
this message; none of the
tokens were found in the database
[12254] dbg: bayes: not scoring message, returning undef
TIA
Hamish.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE2GqC/3QXwQQkZYwRAsg+AKDTrpxO1Zs/D3vMpHpH33v192LwfACdHriQ
gPVGxD5aCuAImhjhUzaFR9w=
=kll1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:09, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
> > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
> > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
> > purely numberic dom
one of the ten digits 0 through 9
Seems clear to me... And since RFC1035 is still current, I'm not sure why
purely numeric domains are considered acceptable. (Apart from I can't
think
of a really good reason apart from pedanticness to stop them).
Hamish,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gino Cerullo wrote:
>
> On 27-Jul-06, at 4:32 PM, Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 17:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>>> On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Hamish wrote:
>
>> Forwarding should (IMO) be implemented in such a way as the
>> FORWARDING mailbox should be used as the new return-path (Just
>> like if you forwarded an email f
e MDA). Then both SPF and forwarding would
work fine. And furthermore be consistent.
Hamish.
pgpHpRZ3hZIMD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ay cuts down 2/3's Viruses &
spam. Because they use harvested addresses. And the churn is obviously enough
to reject a large percentage without too much trouble...
Hamish.
pgp8TheJOmlCc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
me is mud of course because some gets through...
Hamish.
pgppKMiRl7rL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hamish Marson wrote:
> Loren Wilton wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I know about the SPF checks... But I meant does SA
>>>> currently do anything with digital signatures to verify that
>>>> the sender really is the sender &
r eTicketing & disruption notices etc).
ba.com. 86400 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx
ip4:163.166.43.0/24 -all"
britishairways.com. 86400 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx
ip4:163.166.43.0/24 -all"
(There's no digital signing on the emails AFAIK, so dkim i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Mason wrote:
> Hamish Marson writes:
>> Justin Mason wrote:
>>> Hamish writes:
>>>> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 08:48, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>>>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Mason wrote:
> Hamish writes:
>> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 08:48, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> Given that airline messages are important, are related to
>>
th airlines / travel agents to use some sort of
> > proof of origin (spf, digital signature, whatnot) Recipients could then
> > apply whitelists
>
> Amen to that!
Does SA do anything with digital signatures to deduct scores? If it's
worthwhile, I'm game to play.
Hamish.
pgpRP8SW9ERLm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
sd-new as well... Maybe
it's amavisd's fault? Or an amavisd.conf problem?
TIA
Hamish
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEbc2d/3QXwQQkZYwRAlEsAJ9kBgFenQoYGIM82eIFUNF3ZVuGLwCeNF/u
emsWEY+w5toJGDVWIu3Bga8=
=b5A3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:51 -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "Hamish Marson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:55 +, Hamish Marson wrote:
> >> I have a problem... Got aload of complaints about emails not coming
> >> through. On inves
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:55 +, Hamish Marson wrote:
> I have a problem... Got aload of complaints about emails not coming
> through. On investigating, I have discovered that we're getting rules
> such as MISSING_SUBJECT hit, where an email clearly has a subject: line
> in
.
Anyone have any ideas which? And why? The environment is perl-5.8.6 on
AIX 5.1. perl was compiled using xlc. Checking the same message on a
Linux box also using SA310 and that doesn't have the problems (And does
use SARE rulesets).
TIA
Hamish.
o subject line, yet the messes HAVE a
subject line... e.g.
Subject:
=?iso-2022-jp?B?Rnc6IBskQk45OVRETD8uGyhCMjAwNhskQkcvGyhCMDIbJEI3bhsoQg==?=
=?iso-2022-jp?B?MTMbJEJGfDlmGyhC?=
TIA
Hamish.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbi
23 matches
Mail list logo
