On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 08:06 +1000, Robert S wrote:
> Just to recap - at the moment I'm running dnsmasq on my local server.
> My resolv.conf now looks like this:
>
> domain mydomain.com.au
> search mydomain.com.au
> nameserver 127.0.0.1
> nameserver 208.67.220.220 # OpenDNS
> nameserver
Robert S skrev den 2013-06-23 00:06:
Hi.
Just to recap - at the moment I'm running dnsmasq on my local server.
My resolv.conf now looks like this:
domain mydomain.com.au
search mydomain.com.au
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 208.67.220.220 # OpenDNS
nameserver 208.67.222.222 # OpenD
Hi.
Just to recap - at the moment I'm running dnsmasq on my local server.
My resolv.conf now looks like this:
domain mydomain.com.au
search mydomain.com.au
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 208.67.220.220 # OpenDNS
nameserver 208.67.222.222 # OpenDNS
Things have been working OK on this
Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-06-22 23:18:
I'd argue the evidence provided in this thread suggests to stick to
the
first nameserver currently listed in your resolv.conf -- your own.
how are you comming to that conclusion ? :)
one nameserver in resolv.conf, no more no less, if more then
On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 22:34 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 23:18:24 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > If these things are true then the last question is - is it safe to
> > > use OpenDNS IP addresses in my resolv.conf (and hence the remainder
> > > of my small network) or should I s
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 23:18:24 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > If these things are true then the last question is - is it safe to
> > use OpenDNS IP addresses in my resolv.conf (and hence the remainder
> > of my small network) or should I stick to the addresses provided by
> > my ISP?
>
> I'd
On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 06:52 +1000, Robert S wrote:
> The OpenDNS website states "OpenDNS is the largest and most reliable
> _recursive_ DNS service available ...". Presumably this explains why
> my queries are not blocked when I use OpenDNS.
Again, nope. The OpenDNS server will do the query -- th
The OpenDNS website states "OpenDNS is the largest and most reliable
_recursive_ DNS service available ...". Presumably this explains why
my queries are not blocked when I use OpenDNS.
Various discussions on the net state that typo correction causes
problems on OpenDNS with SURBL/URIBL. However
On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 21:16 +1000, Robert S wrote:
> I've eliminated this problem by using openDNS servers:
Nope. You've eliminated the problem by dropping your ISP's DNS servers.
SA uses the first listed nameserver, IIRC, which previously was your
ISP's. By removing them, the third listed became
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Robert S wrote:
I've eliminated this problem by using openDNS servers:
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
domain mydomain.net.au
search mydomain.net.au
nameserver 192.168.0.33 #<--- My server IP
nameserver 208.67.220.220
nameserver 208.67.222.222
Is this likely to hav
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Robert S wrote:
I've eliminated this problem by using openDNS servers:
Is this likely to have untoward consequences?
Yes. OpenDNS is potentially aggregating *more* traffic than your ISP
does...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
FTR:
iirc, OpenDNS is also blocked from doing URIBL queries.
the web is full of forum post regarding this so it may be best not to
forward to them as your fallback.
unbound or powerdns-recursor on a separate local box/VM/would be the
safeest choice.
It also spares you from potential third pa
John Hardin skrev den 2013-06-22 06:45:
If you're running dnsmasq locally, you should list it first so that
you take advantage of its local cache and only fall back to direct
queries of your ISP's servers if dnsmasq fails for some reason.
that only hold water if /etc/resolv.conf does not conta
Robert S skrev den 2013-06-22 06:14:
I only run a small business and I doubt that we'd be exceeding the
URIBL quota.
you need to change /etc/resolv.conf to nameserver 127.0.0.1 and use
bind9 as local dns server that just have NONE forwards in options, and
it must only listen on 127.0.0.1, w
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Robert S wrote:
That wasn't the complete reply - hit the reply button too soon . . .
The two addresses at the top are my ISP's DNS servers and the bottom is the
IP address of my server. I still get the administrator notice with this
configuration. Is there an additional s
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Robert S wrote:
I am running spamassassin_3.3.2-5 on debian Wheezy on a small business server
(x86). I am getting numerous complaints about mail
being falely categorised as spam/ham. I also use version 3.3.2 on my home
server using gentoo (amd64) and don't have these
pro
That wasn't the complete reply - hit the reply button too soon . . .
The two addresses at the top are my ISP's DNS servers and the bottom is the
IP address of my server. I still get the administrator notice with this
configuration. Is there an additional step that I need to take? I'm not a
DNS
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Robert S wrote:
This message seems to get blocked in a lot of blocklists (which also
seem to happen to my users' messages).
That's the first thing you need to resolve.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
blocked.
On Friday, October 19, 2012 01:55:33 PM John Wilcock wrote:
> Le 19/10/2012 13:22, Ian Turner a écrit :
> > I meant something to specifically pick out words like phArmACy.
>
> You could try a rule with a negative lookahead to exclude the correct
> casing, something like this (untested):
Curiously
Le 19/10/2012 13:22, Ian Turner a écrit :
I meant something to specifically pick out words like phArmACy.
You could try a rule with a negative lookahead to exclude the correct
casing, something like this (untested):
header SUBJ_MIXED_CASE_PHARMACY Subject =~
/(?![Pp]harmacy)[Pp][Hh][Aa][Rr]
Hi Martin,
On Friday, October 19, 2012 03:04:44 AM Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > 3. Speaking of Penis, I'm surprised there isn't already a rule
> >
> >looking for the word in subjects, let alone in combination with
> >"Enlarge".
> >Is this intentional?
>
> The rule:
>
> header RULENAME
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 03:04 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> The rule:
>
> header RULENAME Subkect =~ /(penis|pharmacy|med.{0,1}s)/i
>
This should, of course, be:
header RULENAME Subject =~ /(penis|pharmacy|med.{0,1}s)/i
Sorry about the other typos etc - it was really too late to be writ
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 20:56 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> Questions for SA folks:
> 1. Is anyone else seeing this type of spam?
I don't see it.
> 2. Is there anything that can be done to the bayes classifier to
>improve handling of this type of subject? I notice that the message
>with subje
> It really doesn't matter to me whether it was on urisbl/surbl when he
> sent it. I provided what our server marked this as as an example of
> rules that he could look at as to why it was scored low. Other people
> that don't use "unwanted language" may not need it, but in some cases
> it
> helps,
mouss wrote:
Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL
Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the
> http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL
blocklist
Tony Bunce wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm starting to see a noticeable amount of message sneak by spamassassin with
scores mostly the 3-4 range but some as low as 1 point.
I'm running 3.2.4 with SARE, sough, and Botnet. We don't use bayes. Here are
some samples of messages that have got through:
Tony Bunce wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm starting to see a noticeable amount of message sneak by spamassassin with
scores mostly the 3-4 range but some as low as 1 point.
I'm running 3.2.4 with SARE, sough, and Botnet. We don't use bayes. Here are
some samples of messages that have got through:
Hi!
I'm running 3.2.4 with SARE, sough, and Botnet. We don't use bayes. Here are
some samples of messages that have got through:
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
http://pastebin.com/m52635526
http://pastebin.com/m491c4882
http://pastebin.com/m7c1240f2
I get a HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found on all 4
30 matches
Mail list logo
