his message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Self-addressed-spam-tp32232660p32232660.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
W dniu 10.08.2011 12:00, akrohnke pisze:
Hello,
Currently one of our clients are getting spam that looks like it comes from
the sender itself. Spamassassin only occasionally catches it.
Hello!
It should be done at smtp level.
if ("sender domain" is "my domain") and sender didn't authenticated
On 08/10/2011 12:08 PM, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
> W dniu 10.08.2011 12:00, akrohnke pisze:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently one of our clients are getting spam that looks like it
>> comes from
>> the sender itself. Spamassassin only occasionally catches it.
>
> Hello!
> It should be done at smtp level.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:00:56 -0700 (PDT), akrohnke wrote:
Currently one of our clients are getting spam that looks like it
comes from
the sender itself. Spamassassin only occasionally catches it.
spf fail ?
header EXTRA_INCOME Subject =~ /extra inkomster/
header EXTRA_INCOME Subject =~ /e
On 10/08/11 11:14, J4K wrote:
On 08/10/2011 12:08 PM, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2011 12:00, akrohnke pisze:
Hello,
Currently one of our clients are getting spam that looks like it
comes from
the sender itself. Spamassassin only occasionally catches it.
Hello!
It should be done at sm
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:08:03 +0200, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
It should be done at smtp level.
if ("sender domain" is "my domain") and sender didn't authenticated
then reject mail .
http://old.nabble.com/postfwd-stop-equal-sender-recipient-spams-td21164908.html
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:14:28 +0200, J4K wrote:
.
How does this work on a server with 1,000 virtual domains on it?
like it would do for one domain ?, btw spf test in mta level will catch
this kind of spams if recipient is spf protected, if no spf see
http://old.nabble.com/postfwd-stop-equal-
hrough. Also looked for a `smf-spf` RPM for CentOS to no avail.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Self-addressed-spam-tp32232660p32233487.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, akrohnke wrote:
Currently one of our clients are getting spam that looks like it comes
from the sender itself.
Spamassassin 3.2.5
Are you able to upgrade? There are to==from rules in 3.3.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar..
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 05:13:12 -0700 (PDT), akrohnke wrote:
I installed `perl-Mail-SPF`, that should make SA check the SPF record
and
add points if necessary, correct? Doesn't seem to have any effect,
they
still slip through. Also looked for a `smf-spf` RPM for CentOS to no
avail.
spamassassin
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:19:01 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
Are you able to upgrade? There are to==from rules in 3.3.
i have my own from.pm plugin that checks most on this issue, just liked
to use maillist.pm before release it, need help on this :(
and could one put in sandbox for me ?
me
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
and could one put in sandbox for me ?
meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
meta SPF_RANDOM_SENDER (SPF_HELO_PASS && !SPF_PASS)
both are fine for me :-)
Will do, as subrules.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
meta SPF_RANDOM_SENDER (SPF_HELO_PASS && !SPF_PASS)
Will do, as subrules.
tflags nopublish
?
i liked to test scores in sandbox, not make it live
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
> meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
> meta SPF_RANDOM_SENDER (SPF_HELO_PASS && !SPF_PASS)
Will do, as subrules.
tflags nopublish
Metas are cheap, and subrules don't co
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
Already in as __SPF_FULL_PASS
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:28:27 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
> meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
> meta SPF_RANDOM_SENDER (SPF_HELO_PASS && !SPF_PASS)
Will do, as subrule
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT), John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote:
meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
Already in as __SPF_FULL_PASS
super, will use it so
17 matches
Mail list logo