Howdy -
I have two VMs at Digital Ocean, one on the east coast, one on the west.
I'm running Sendmail-8.14.8-2.fc20.x86_64. I have several DNSBLs listed:
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`in.dnsbl.org ')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`cbl.abuseat.org')dnl
On 07/24/2014 09:58 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Howdy -
I have two VMs at Digital Ocean, one on the east coast, one on the west.
I'm running Sendmail-8.14.8-2.fc20.x86_64. I have several DNSBLs listed:
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`in.dnsbl.org ')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org')dnl
s/somewhat// # ;)
On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 09:58 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
I'm running Sendmail-8.14.8-2.fc20.x86_64. I have several DNSBLs listed:
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`in.dnsbl.org ')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`cbl.abuseat.org')dnl
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Howdy -
I have two VMs at Digital Ocean, one on the east coast, one on the west.
I'm running Sendmail-8.14.8-2.fc20.x86_64. I have several DNSBLs listed:
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`in.dnsbl.org ')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org')dnl
On 07/24/2014 10:37 AM, Dave Funk wrote:
Thomas.
Do you have 'MSA' port enabled for your sendmail? (IE port 567) and
SMTP-AUTH? Then just skip the dnsbl checks for auth'ed mail submissions.
You could whitelist your client IP address in your 'access' file but
what happens when that address
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
But this assumes that your SA is called after the Return-Path header is
added, and not before. If you're using a milter, this won't work, but if
you're calling from procmail, it will.
Ideally a milter will fake a return-path header when it fakes
Kelson wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
But this assumes that your SA is called after the Return-Path header is
added, and not before. If you're using a milter, this won't work,
but if
you're calling from procmail, it will.
Ideally a milter will fake a return-path
Ideally a milter will fake a return-path header when it fakes the
required received header.
For the record, current versions of MIMEDefang do this. I believe
someone mentioned that current versions of Amavisd-new also do this.
YMMV with older releases and other milters.
Ditto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm having problems whitelisting mail sent through web sites with a from
address supplied by the user.
Case in point, I send an article from huffingtonpost.com to myself. I
used a whitelist from huffingtonpost.com, but that doesn't reduce the
spam
Steven Stern wrote:
I'm having problems whitelisting mail sent through web sites with a from
address supplied by the user.
Case in point, I send an article from huffingtonpost.com to myself. I
used a whitelist from huffingtonpost.com, but that doesn't reduce the
spam score.
Should be
Steven Stern wrote:
I'm having problems whitelisting mail sent through web sites with a from
address supplied by the user.
Case in point, I send an article from huffingtonpost.com to myself. I
used a whitelist from huffingtonpost.com, but that doesn't reduce the
spam score.
The proper
Matt Kettler wrote:
But this assumes that your SA is called after the Return-Path header is
added, and not before. If you're using a milter, this won't work, but if
you're calling from procmail, it will.
Ideally a milter will fake a return-path header when it fakes the
required received
Hi,
I subscribe to a number of email lists on Yahoo and believe it or not,
none of the lists I subscribe to have ever been spammed (at least not
since I've been a subscriber). However, I frequently get messages that
Spamassassin thinks are SPAM. Because the From: header on postings to
the
Rob Tanner wrote:
Hi,
I subscribe to a number of email lists on Yahoo and believe it or not,
none of the lists I subscribe to have ever been spammed (at least not
since I've been a subscriber). However, I frequently get messages
that Spamassassin thinks are SPAM. Because the From: header
Matt,
Thanks. That did the trick.
-- Rob
On 04/16/2006 08:38 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Rob Tanner wrote:
Hi,
I subscribe to a number of email lists on Yahoo and believe it or not,
none of the lists I subscribe to have ever been spammed (at least not
since I've been a subscriber).
At 09:37 -0600 03/22/2005, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
I don't even allow mail from this list to go through SA. In my
~/.procmailrc, I have a recipe prior to the call to spamc like this:
I do something similar but different. All of my white lists are outside of my
procmailrc so I can edit them more
...
I'll mention this again since i have yet to come up with a solution.
While the above works great for people using procmail, does anyone have
a solution that works without procmail? Im stuck passing all list
traffic through SA because of this. Just this morning someone on this
list
I'll mention this again since i have yet to come up with a solution.
While the above works great for people using procmail, does anyone have
a solution that works without procmail? Im stuck passing all list
traffic through SA because of this. Just this morning someone on this
I had a manual
From: Robert Markin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are whitelisiting this actual
mailing list. I have the
Loren Wilton wrote:
Normally this would work very well, but this list changes its name and
description and other characteristics so often (and without any
announcement whatever!) that it was impossible to keep up with
list-of-the-day syndrome.
This header is relatively stable:
List-Id:
...
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] apache.org worked when I used static
whitelists.
I had a bunch of similar entries for various mailing lists in a big
whitelists.cf file in /etc/mail/spamassassin
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet
Matt Kettler wrote:
This is exactly what i am trying to prevent. I really couldnt care
less if the list messages get marked as spam. What i DONT want to
happen is list messages to get autolearned as ham. Am i correct in
saying that adding the whitelist_from_rcvd will not prevent this from
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
bayes_ignore_to users@spamassassin.apache.org
(along with a whitelist_to for the same address).
Doh! I guess it goes to show that AFAIK is more or less nothing :)
Matt Kettler wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
bayes_ignore_to users@spamassassin.apache.org
(along with a whitelist_to for the same address).
Doh! I guess it goes to show that AFAIK is more or less nothing :)
More like, just about everything. With the number of problems you solve
for people on
List Mail User wrote:
...
Subject: RE: How do I whitelist this list?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:25:54 -0800
...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], users@spamassassin.apache.org
...
Loren Wilton wrote:
Normally this would work very well, but this list changes its name and
description
From: List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Subject: RE: How do I whitelist this list?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:25:54 -0800
...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], users@spamassassin.apache.org
...
Loren Wilton wrote:
Normally this would work very well, but this list
...
This header is relatively stable:
List-Id: users.spamassassin.apache.org
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -emap{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,
And
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 03:47, List Mail User typed:
Several people have suggested it. Clearly it is just my latent
paranoia that make me think this way. (Notice, everybody adds yet;
Though it would take a stupid spammer to purposely target this list, such
creatures do exist. Also, I
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are whitelisiting this actual
mailing list. I have the following in my local.cf, but I still get
quite a few
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:20:32AM -0800, Robert Markin wrote:
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are whitelisiting this actual
mailing
Bob McClure Jr wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:20:32AM -0800, Robert Markin wrote:
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are
Bob McClure Jr wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:20:32AM -0800, Robert Markin wrote:
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are whitelisiting this actual
I'll mention this again since i have yet to come up with a solution.
While the above works great for people using procmail, does anyone have
a solution that works without procmail? Im stuck passing all list
traffic through SA because of this. Just this morning someone on this
list posted a
Hi Robert,
I put this in the (on my machine) /etc/MailScanner/rules/spam.whitelist.rules:
From: jiscmail.ac.uk yes # MailScanner mailing list
From: spamassassin.apache.org yes # SpamAssassin mailing list
Those are tabs, and not spaces.
I tried a bunch of other things... but
Andy
Robert uses procmail and spamd/spamc so your MailScanner setup (and
mine!) won't work.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Andy Norris wrote:
Hi Robert,
I put this in the (on my machine)
/etc/MailScanner/rules/spam.whitelist.rules:
From:
Robert Markin wrote:
Hey everybody,
RH9
SA 3.0.0 (invoked by procmail spamc/spamd)
Sendmail 8
Procmail
I tried to search for this on GMANE but was unsuccessful.
I would like to know how some of you guys are whitelisiting this
actual mailing list. I have the following in my local.cf, but I still
Sorry about the oversite. I saw this email this morning after a
not-very-good night's sleep at a motel. Struck close to my heart, as I just
could not get the whitelist_from_rcvd to work on my box. Very frustrating,
and a lot of time spent. I finally resorted to the MailScanner way. But I'm
Jim Maul wrote:
While the above works great for people using procmail, does anyone have
a solution that works without procmail?
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] apache.org worked when I used static
whitelists.
I had a bunch of similar entries for various mailing lists in a big
Andy Norris wrote:
Sorry about the oversite. I saw this email this morning after a
not-very-good night's sleep at a motel. Struck close to my heart, as I
just could not get the whitelist_from_rcvd to work on my box. Very
frustrating, and a lot of time spent
If you can't get
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from mail.apache.org
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from_rcvd mail.apache.org
This will not work as all it does is assign -100 points to the message.
This could
Jim Maul wrote:
This will not work as all it does is assign -100 points to the
message. This could cause an autolearn=ham on every message, even the
spam that people post to the list!
Sorry Jim, but that's 100% pure fallacy.. The autolearner explicitly
ignores whitelist and blacklist
Jim Maul wrote:
Ok, so if the autolearner ignores the -100 from the
whitelist_from_rcvd and uses the score without the -100 to determine
whether or not it should be autolearned, what is the point of adding
the whitelist_from_rcvd entry at all? I understand that it will
pretty much prevent
42 matches
Mail list logo
