I said:
>> I'd consider that a rather sane decision. Back when my distribution
>> had user accounts with shell access, I had custom rules disabled too.
LuKreme wrote:
> Sue, but how long ago was that?
Not sure I approve of that nickname... That was ~3y ago.
> The way to properly host people no
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 9-Jun-2009, at 07:42, Adam Katz wrote:
No, I'd consider that a rather sane decision. Back when my distribution
had user accounts with shell access, I had custom rules disabled too.
Sue, but how long ago was that? The way to properly host people now is
On 9-Jun-2009, at 07:42, Adam Katz wrote:
ktn wrote:
By default, the spamd daemon does not allow user defined rules.
Hostmonster needs to set "allow_user_rules" to 1 in the system
configuration file. I asked about this and that's something that
they will not do.
LuKreme wrote:
It's a good thi
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> The differences between 3.2.x versions are code fixes. There
> is no difference in rules, when using sa-update.
>
> While it is possible to publish per micro version updates,
> this is not necessary and thus not used for 3.2.x. They all
> share the very same rul
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 07:57 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> That is correct. I hope (when I get write access to the repo) to add them
> to the 3.2.5 rules so they will go out via sa-update. Is there any way you
> can upgrade to 3.2.5?
The differences between 3.2.x versions are code fixes. There is n
ktn wrote:
>>> By default, the spamd daemon does not allow user defined rules.
>>> Hostmonster needs to set "allow_user_rules" to 1 in the system
>>> configuration file. I asked about this and that's something that
>>> they will not do.
LuKreme wrote:
> It's a good thing there are other hosting
7;s running a private MTA to service a private LAN.
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/New-slew-of-spams-tp23892760p23942169.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 8-Jun-2009, at 11:19, ktn wrote:
By default, the spamd daemon does not allow user defined rules.
Hostmonster needs to set "allow_user_rules" to 1 in the system
configuration file. I asked about this and that's something that
they will
not do.
It's a good thing there are other hosting comp
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ktn wrote:
By default, the spamd daemon does not allow user defined rules.
Hostmonster needs to set "allow_user_rules" to 1 in the system
configuration file. I asked about this and that's something that they
will not do.
...which is completely reasonable in a shared-hosti
that they won't allow 'local.cf' or that
> they won't allow 'user_prefs'? I'd be a bit surprised if the latter
> were not available
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/New-slew-of-spams-tp23892760p23928476.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ktn wrote:
I am also starting to get a lot of these ".rtf attachment only with no
email body text" spams. Unfortunately, we use hostmonster.com for our
email so my ability to customize SA is greatly limited (i.e. I cannot
use custom rules).
Do you mean that they won't all
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 07:17 -0700, ktn wrote:
> I am also starting to get a lot of these ".rtf attachment only with no email
> body text" spams. Unfortunately, we use hostmonster.com for our email so my
> ability to customize SA is greatly limited (i.e. I cannot use custom rules).
>
You can, of c
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ktn wrote:
We haven't been with hostmonster long, but considering that they're running
3.2.4 right now, I would assume at some point that they will update to
3.2.5. Until then, I can be patient. I'm just glad to hear that a standard
rule for this kind of spam will be added
s to the repo) to add them
> to the 3.2.5 rules so they will go out via sa-update. Is there any way you
> can upgrade to 3.2.5?
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/New-slew-of-spams-tp23892760p23926488.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ktn wrote:
I am also starting to get a lot of these ".rtf attachment only with no
email body text" spams. Unfortunately, we use hostmonster.com for our
email so my ability to customize SA is greatly limited (i.e. I cannot
use custom rules).
Bummer.
Does hostmonster run
ndard rule in SA (we
use 3.2.4) for filtering out mail with attachments but no text.
Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
>> I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their
>> way
>> through my SpamAssassin fil
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:05:40 -0400
Rob McEwen wrote:
> An occassional legit e-mail will have RDNS_NONE, and an occassional
> legit e-mail will have RCVD_IN_PBL. But even extreme fewer legit
> emails will have hits on BOTH of these. So I'd suggest scoring the
> combination of the two either just a
On Fri, June 5, 2009 20:05, Rob McEwen wrote:
> I highly recommend scoring RDNS_NONE at much higher than "0.1", and
> scoring RCVD_IN_PBL at much higher than 0.9
meta SPAM_LOCAL (RDNS_NONE && RCVD_IN_PBL)
describe SPAM_LOCAL Meta: it hits both RDNS_NONE and RCVD_IN_PBL
score SPAM_LOCAL 5.0
--
On Fri, June 5, 2009 19:58, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=93.5.36.134
do you use zen.spamhaus.org in exim ?
http://www.wpbl.info/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?ip=93.5.36.134
if the ip is not sending ham to you block the ip localy
--
http://loca
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 20:33 +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
> >>
> >> As you can see they tend to hit a couple of blacklists, but don't get a
> >> high enough score to be marked as spam. What do your SpamAssassin
> >> analyses give of this e-mail, and a
Hi!
http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
As you can see they tend to hit a couple of blacklists, but don't get a
high enough score to be marked as spam. What do your SpamAssassin
analyses give of this e-mail, and any tips as to how I can get these
marked as spam?
But;
93.5.36.134 listed in b
Jeremy Morton wrote:
> I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their
> way through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
>
> As you can see they tend to hit a couple of blacklists, but don'
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their
way through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
Look for the MIME_NO_TEXT ruleset I posted a few days ago.
--
John Har
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their way
through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
These are examples of the new variant on 'image only' spams, hav
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 18:58 +0100, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their
> way through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
>
> As you ca
Jeremy Morton wrote:
> I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making
> their way through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
>
> As you can see they tend to hit a couple of blacklists, but don'
Hi,
I've suddenly started getting a new slew of spams that are making their
way through my SpamAssassin filter. Here's an example of one:
http://pastebin.com/m586e296c
As you can see they tend to hit a couple of blacklists, but don't get a
high enough score to be marked as
27 matches
Mail list logo
