On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 4:52:53 PM, mouss mouss wrote:
> > Jeff Chan wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:22:24 AM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> >>
> >>>FYI (and
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:02:03 -0500 (EST), JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Report Title : SpamAssassin - Spam Statistics
> > Report Date : 2004-12-10
> > Period Beginning : Thu 09 Dec 2004 06:00:00 AM PST
> > Period Ending: Fri 10 Dec 2004 06:00:00 AM PST
> >
> > Reporting Period : 24
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:04:28 -0500, Adam Lanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> My managment has recently asked me how SpamAssassin is prepared to deal
> with a number of recent trends in spam technology. This was prompted by
> a recent seminar the
> I find it pretty hard to believe it couldn't resolve off itself. Have
> you checked your firewall rules, and your named.conf to see if you've
> allowed-query 127.0.0.1 in your options statement? Have you tried
> resolving anything locally, while ssh'ed into the box? What about using
> another
FYI (and for future list-searchers), the problem with URIDNSBL
appearing to work but not actually scoring was because the host's
resolv.conf included 127.0.0.1, which apparently something doesn't
like.
Peter Matulis just sent an unrelated email to the list mentioning
this, and after checking it ou
> t/dnsbl.Bareword found in conditional at t/dnsbl.t line
> 15.
> Not found: P_2 =
> [127.0.0.4]
> # Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
> Not found: P_7 =
>
> # Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
> Not found: P_4 =
> [127.0.0.1, 12
> Note that only 18 of the tests failed. P_1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 seemed to work?
Scratch that last comment. They very clearly aren't working, just from
that snippit. That's me getting desperate-yet-hopeful. :)
--
Matthew 'Shandower' Romanek
IDS Analyst
> > # vi /usr/share/spamassassin/25_uribl.cf
> Is this the right directory, anyone?
All the other rules in there are working, including Bayes and pattern
matching. Since SURBL is showing up in the debug, it's obviously
getting the cue from somewhere..
> Do you have non-zero scores set?
Indeed. T
> 17 seconds is way too long for name resolution. Does it take
> that long from the command line (for an uncached query)?
No, it's pretty snappy all around. But with a 15 second timeout,
spamassassin -D showed all timeouts for the DNSBL. The URIBL's
appeared to have successful queries even at tha
Okay, after my last post, I had the amazingly bright idea to feed
spamd some mail in debug mode. It showed pretty clearly that all the
DNS lookups were timing out at 15 seconds. I increased the timeout to
30, and now things are resolving at 17 seconds. Duh.
However, I'm still not seeing anything g
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:13:07 -0500, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd go verify that the plugin is actually 3.0.1 versus 3.0.0. The only
> (or easiest?) way you can tell is looking at line 169.
-- /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm, line 169
next
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:02:02 -0500, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:51:57AM -0800, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> > bodyURIBL_SBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL')
>
> Ok, so that's a 3.0.1 uridnsbl ca
I've been following along for a while and looking around the archives,
but I can't find an answer to a problem I've been having since
upgrading from 2.x to 3.x. Namely, none of the DNSBL or URIBL seem to
be working. I've verified a number of things from previous posts on
the subject, see below.
I'
13 matches
Mail list logo
