Re: whitelist_from_spf

On May 03, 2020, at 10.55, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 29.04.20 00:05, listsb wrote: >> i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how >> it works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small >> test message em

whitelist_from_spf

hi- i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how it works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small test message emulating mail from github [taken from an actual message] and have added an entry for whitelist_from_spf. when testing, it

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.35, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > listsb skrev den 2018-11-11 19:20: > >> thanks, agreed. is continuation of this discussion ok here? or >> should i take to the amavis list? > > its important that networks ip ranges is equal in all software used

sa-update --allow-plugins [was: sa-update not properly parsing urls in MIRRORED.BY files?]

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 10.55, Henrik K wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:59:36PM -0500, listsb wrote: >> >>> sa-update -vvv --allowplugins ... > > Just a general note, I would never ever use --allowplugins unless it's your > personal channel. There is no re

Re: sa-update not properly parsing urls in MIRRORED.BY files?

On Jan 11, 2019, at 00.24, Bill Cole wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2019, at 23:15, listsb wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 2019, at 06.05, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >>> >>> I believe this is a known issue fixed in svn. We need to get 3.4.3 out the >>> door for this.

Re: sa-update not properly parsing urls in MIRRORED.BY files?

On Jan 10, 2019, at 06.05, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > I believe this is a known issue fixed in svn. We need to get 3.4.3 out the > door for this. Are you able to test with the 3.4 branch from svn? thanks. i've done a crude test just grabbing sa-update from svn, with some progress:

sa-update not properly parsing urls in MIRRORED.BY files?

hi- the subject expresses my uneducated hypothesis as to what might be causing a problem i seem to have encountered after upgrading to 3.4.2. i have an additional channel defined [sought.rules.yerp.org], and updates of this channel seem to have broken upon updating to 3.4.2: >sa-update -vvv

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote: >>>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the >>>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.23, Henrik K wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote: >> hi- >> >> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the >> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the m

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.05, RW wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:35:18 -0500 > listsb wrote: > >>> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote: >>>> i've just noticed th

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote: >> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the >> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come >> from. i have the f

Re: ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

On Nov 10, 2018, at 21.01, John Hardin wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote: > >> hi- >> >> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the >> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come >> fr

ALL_TRUSTED always shown in X-Spam-Status header

hi- i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have the following: >grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/* /etc/spamassassin/99_local-config.cf:internal_networks

Re: DNS Terminology

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 17.34, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 17:10 -0400, btb wrote: >> On 2016.09.23 16.16, Lindsay Haisley wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 18:43 +0100, RW wrote: Right, but the question here is why isn't a forwarding server

Re: Customized header (add_header) doesn't work

> On Dec 19, 2015, at 04.35, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > Am 19.12.2015 um 04:08 schrieb listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net: >> On Dec 17, 2015, at 13.16, Alfredo Saldanha <asalda...@infolink.com.br> >> wrote: >>> >>

Re: Customized header (add_header) doesn't work

On Dec 17, 2015, at 13.16, Alfredo Saldanha wrote: > > My second SA is a Zimbra server. > I use Zimbra SA only to drop the message in junk folder. > I don't want to clean at the Zimbra server, it is default behavior. for what it's worth, if you were to use amavis

Re: sa-compile seems to not clean up after itself

On Feb 12, 2015, at 14.09, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:25 PM, listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: i hope another solicitation for this help request is ok. It's ok. Overall, I agree. I tested on a devel box and running sa-compile does have an rm line

Re: sa-compile seems to not clean up after itself

i hope another solicitation for this help request is ok. On Feb 04, 2015, at 09.19, btb listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: hi- i happened to notice a bunch of old files in /tmp/, related to spamassassin. after a bit of testing, it looks like sa-compile isn't cleaning up after

Re: dealing with mail not yet listed in network tests

On Nov 14, 2014, at 11.41, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 14.11.2014 um 17:11 schrieb listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net: one characteristic that appears to be pretty consistent is the age of the domain name that a given message references [from header, envelope sender, ptr

spam from creative gtlds

this was discussed a while back, in the context of tlds with names of colors [red, blue, pink, etc]. recently, i'm getting spam from the rocks tld [i can share further detail if it's of interest]. what ultimately happened with the color tlds, in terms of spamassassin? was there a ruleset

Re: possible false positive with FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD?

On Nov 30, 2014, at 15.42, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu wrote: On 30. nov. 2014 21.12.06 listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: http://dpaste.com/3XTYV0V.txt Is trusted_networks and internal_networks correct both for ipv4 and ipv6 ? Does it match settings in amavisd ? Both sa

Re: different results when using --debug

On Dec 08, 2014, at 19.28, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote: Actually, looking at a diff of DBM.pm between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1 I can see the taint bug has already been fixed by r1608413: @@ -814,3 +816,3 @@ my @vars = $self-get_storage_variables(); - dbg(bayes: DB journal

message sent to list yesterday

hi- i sent a message to the list yesterday, but have not yet seen it appear. can someone check? my logs indicate successful delivery to mx1.us.apache.org: Dec 3 17:48:24 mta postfix/smtp[10226]: 3jtFgN6Dfmz9s2b: to=users@spamassassin.apache.org, relay=mx1.us.apache.org[140.211.11.136]:25,

Re: message sent to list yesterday

On Dec 04, 2014, at 12.18, Joe Quinn jqu...@pccc.com wrote: On 12/4/2014 11:17 AM, listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: hi- i sent a message to the list yesterday, but have not yet seen it appear. can someone check? my logs indicate successful delivery to mx1.us.apache.org: Dec

different results when using --debug

i was testing with a sample message, and noticed that when running manually with --debug, there seem to be numerous differences in the results, such as scores for the same tests differing, visual ordering of results differing [is this significant?], and bayes not being listed when using

possible false positive with FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD?

hi- a message from yahoo seems to have matched FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD, which from my perspective, the message is not forged [see below pastebin - i hope i've not removed anything of importance during anonymization]. i noted that dkim authentication appears to have failed, which, while of interest

Re: dealing with mail not yet listed in network tests

On Nov 14, 2014, at 00.35, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: all of the emotional postulative opining aside, one possibility i have been considering is having postfix delay relay of messages to the content filter for a few

dealing with mail not yet listed in network tests

hi- i've recently asked about essentially this same topic on the postfix-users mailing list, so apologies to those subjected to the repetition. the topic came up for me a couple of weeks ago when i asked about duplicate spam that was scoring low the first time it was received:

Re: Valid TLDs (was: Re: Custom rule not hitting suddenly?)

On Sep 8, 2014, at 21.45, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: Some discussion of the underlying issue. On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 02:59 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: At the time of the 3.3.2 release, the .club TLD simply didn't exist. It has been accepted by IANA just recently.

Re: sanitizing/normalizing messages for feeding sa-learn

On Aug 27, 2014, at 18.13, Quanah Gibson-Mount qua...@zimbra.com wrote: --On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:06 PM -0400 btb listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: hi- we have a system [zimbra] where users can select a message in the mua interface and click a spam or not spam button