Hi, I wonder why spamassassin detects email sent from android to our mail
server as spams? I ran spamassassin -D the_email and got result as below
Content analysis details: (13.8 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
Il 09/03/2012 10.28, FC Mario Patty ha scritto:
Hi, I wonder why spamassassin detects email sent from android to our
mail server as spams? I ran spamassassin -D the_email and got result
as below
Content analysis details: (13.8 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the outgoing
server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our server itself (in
other words, not relaying through the provider server). Thank you for the
suggestion.
Regards,
On 09/03/12 11:29, FC Mario Patty wrote:
I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the
outgoing server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our
server itself (in other words, not relaying through the provider
Il 09/03/2012 12.20, Simon Loewenthal ha scritto:
On 09/03/12 11:29, FC Mario Patty wrote:
I'm sorry for not giving full information before.
We set our mail server to use SMTP with TLS (port 587) and the
outgoing server (of the mail client on android smart phone) as our
server itself (in other
On 25 Feb 2012, at 11:17 , Michelle Konzack wrote:
There is something in spamassassin which does recursive rDNS lookups on
all Received: headers
No there isn’t.
--
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-01 16:27:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
your domain has no A Record
--[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net' ]-
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
tamay-dogan.net.3600IN SOA dns1.tamay-dogan.net.
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-01 16:27:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
your domain has no A Record
--[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net' ]-
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN SOA
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-03 14:59:16, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
not quite ... your domain has no A record
Ehm:
tamay-dogan.net.3600IN MX 10 mail.tamay-dogan.net.
mail.tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN A 78.47.247.21
Do I miss something?
Hans
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello xTrade Assessory,
Am 2012-03-03 14:59:16, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
not quite ... your domain has no A record
Ehm:
tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN MX 10 mail.tamay-dogan.net.
mail.tamay-dogan.net. 3600IN A 78.47.247.21
Do I
Den 2012-03-03 17:43, Michelle Konzack skrev:
--[ command 'dig ANY tamay-dogan.net'
]-
dig +trace tamay-dogan.net
dig +dnssec +norecurse tamay-dogan.net
all works fine here
Den 2012-03-03 18:59, xTrade Assessory skrev:
not quite ... your domain has no A record
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net a
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net
both works here
Den 2012-03-03 19:11, Michelle Konzack skrev:
Do I miss something?
MX is not A or , but its perfectly ok
Den 2012-03-03 19:25, xTrade Assessory skrev:
the A record for a domain is the fall back for MTAs if no MX is
available
what mta do try this ?, what rfc says there must be a A for every
hostname pr MX ?
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-03-03 19:25, xTrade Assessory skrev:
the A record for a domain is the fall back for MTAs if no MX is
available
what mta do try this ?
any
, what rfc says there must be a A for every hostname pr MX ?
firstable what you wrote here does not make any sense at
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-03-03 18:59, xTrade Assessory skrev:
not quite ... your domain has no A record
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net a
dig ANY www.tamay-dogan.net
both works here
first BS is querying the www record
second, BS is both works, what firstable is no answer at all
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:18:56 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello RW,
Am 2012-02-25 22:42:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
I think that this is pretty conclusive that it's nothing to do with
Spamassassin. It doesn't look anything like what I'd expect for a
Spamassassin-based
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-02-27 11:00:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Ok. So you DO have rDNS, just not a customized one. That should not
cause problems in most cases.
Right but this conflicts wit SSL certs
That sounds like an MTA configuration. Why do you think it is related
to
Hello RW,
Am 2012-02-25 22:42:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
I think that this is pretty conclusive that it's nothing to do with
Spamassassin. It doesn't look anything like what I'd expect for a
Spamassassin-based rejection. I looks like some basic MTA check.
Another thing is that
On 3/1/2012 10:10 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
That sounds like an MTA configuration. Why do you think it is related
to SA?
Because the error messages are based on SA values.
Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
message that mentioned SA.
--
Bowie
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
message that mentioned SA.
Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content, but
the MAILER-DAEMON message had included 6-8 lines
On 3/1/2012 1:25 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
message that mentioned SA.
Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content, but
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-03-01 10:52:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Ok. What was the error message? I don't recall you showing an error
message that mentioned SA.
Currently I am not in my office and do not know exatly the content, but
the MAILER-DAEMON
On 2/25/2012 2:07 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-02-24 12:42:02, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Why not? It doesn't have to be specific. public41.tamay-dogan.net
would work fine. What is the downside of having a rDNS entry?
...because my ISP @office (Alice) offer
Hello RW,
Am 2012-02-24 14:00:11, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
As far as positive scoring rules are concerned, Spamassassin should only
care about the reverse dns of the last external relay, and
mail.tamay-dogan.net has impeccable dns.
Right, and it was a problem with spamassassin on
Hello Bowie Bailey,
Am 2012-02-24 12:42:02, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Why not? It doesn't have to be specific. public41.tamay-dogan.net
would work fine. What is the downside of having a rDNS entry?
...because my ISP @office (Alice) offer only fixed IP (85.182.220.41)
with only but
Hello Joe Sniderman,
Am 2012-02-24 18:45:52, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
c) Public mail server mail.tamay-dogan.net (78.47.247.21)
d) Receiving mail server
So far, so good.
If now d) is runing spamassassin, thaen my messages are to 90% rejected.
Strange. What tests
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:17:36 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
You haven't quoted any rules that are firing inappropriately. Do you
have any evidence that this is anything to do with Spamassassin or
reverse dns?
...because it is NOT my spamassassin which reject MY mails.
So there's no
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set invisible
in the global section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
spamassassin consider my mails as spam du to the received headers...
Scenario:
Am 24.02.2012 12:23, schrieb Michelle Konzack:
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set invisible
in the global section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
spamassassin consider my mails
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:23:21 +0100
Michelle Konzack wrote:
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem
(the receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set
invisible in the global section)
That doesn't sound like like a optimum solution unless you're
On 2/24/2012 6:23 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set invisible
in the global section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
spamassassin consider my mails as spam
24.2.2012 13:23, Michelle Konzack kirjoitti:
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set invisible
in the global section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
spamassassin consider my mails as
Am 24.02.2012 15:00, schrieb RW:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:32:35 +0100
Robert Schetterer wrote:
I am not realy sure if this fixes your problem but i have set
score RDNS_NONE 0
cause the default points at this parameter looks like nonsense to me
i have also a scenario with private net
On 02/24/2012 06:23 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
In relation to the previous poster with the fetchmail problem (the
receiver should hide fetchmail received header by adding set invisible
in the global section) I have the probvlem, that receiving MTAs runing
spamassassin consider my mails
35 matches
Mail list logo
