On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:59:29 -0500
Jerry Malcolm wrote:
> understood why I can't get a report headers at all. I could modify
> james to get the modified msg returned with the headers and replace
> the original msg with the updated msg. But I don't see that as
> necessary. In other words, this
On 19/08/2016 11:58, Axb wrote:
Question:
Does it also support adding 3rd party (native Perl) plugins?
or are you tied to the precomplied collection delivered by JAM?
Jams product runs with Perl - so any perl plugins provided for
Spamassassin should work on the windows versions too. FYI: i
Question:
Does it also support adding 3rd party (native Perl) plugins?
or are you tied to the precomplied collection delivered by JAM?
As to the list's hostility, imo, most of the beginner's questions could
be answered by reading the docs or using a search machine.
Instead, many new users expe
FYI
I and many others use Jam's windows port of Spamassassin. It is exactly
the same as the linux version in what it can and cant do. Users can
modify with plugins, rules, scoring overrides etc just the same as you
do on linux. Spamd, spamc, spamassassin... all the same. The only
thing th
On 8/18/2016 8:34 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2016-08-18 17:11, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:14:47 -0500
Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I'm still trying to see why I'm not getting the report back. I've
gone all the way back to the source code that does the streaming of
the spamd invocation on port 783.
On 2016-08-18 17:11, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:14:47 -0500
Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I'm still trying to see why I'm not getting the report back. I've
gone all the way back to the source code that does the streaming of
the spamd invocation on port 783. I can't seem to find the
documentati
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:14:47 -0500
Jerry Malcolm wrote:
> I'm still trying to see why I'm not getting the report back. I've
> gone all the way back to the source code that does the streaming of
> the spamd invocation on port 783. I can't seem to find the
> documentation anywhere on the format
On 8/18/2016 2:15 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/18/2016 3:05 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
On 8/18/2016 1:45 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:21 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:18 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is the X-Spam-Status header I got back on an uncaught spam. No,
hit
On 8/18/2016 5:39 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2016-08-18 21:08, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Hmm. I do not have any forwarding statements. Is there a way via
command line (e.g. nslookup, etc) that I can determine if BIND is
recursing or forwarding? I assume that might be in the SA report
header. B
On 2016-08-18 21:08, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Hmm. I do not have any forwarding statements. Is there a way via
command line (e.g. nslookup, etc) that I can determine if BIND is
recursing or forwarding? I assume that might be in the SA report
header. But see my previous response that I can't seem
On 2016-08-18 20:48, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
|allow-recursion { any; }; |But it lists other options such as
allow-query, allow-query-cache, etc. Is recursion the only one that
might be affecting SA? Or should I enable other options?
this is safe if you only listen to 127.0.0.1
if you use it on
On 2016-08-18 20:36, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
ok, I discovered the hidden ctrl-u fn in Tbird to show the full
source. Updated pastebin: http://pastebin.com/eRurR7Mv
DBL_SPAM: 6.50
URIBL_SBL_CSS: 6.50
URIBL_BLACK: 7.50
ABUSE_SURBL: 5.50
FUZZY_DENIED: 8.54
ONCE_RECEIVED: 0.10
DCC_BULK: 2.00
MIME_
On 18 Aug 2016, at 15:08, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
On 8/18/2016 1:50 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is encouraging. I looked up how to set recursion in Bind. It
looks like it's just requires adding a field to the options:
|allow-recursion { any;
On 8/18/2016 3:05 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
On 8/18/2016 1:45 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:21 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:18 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is the X-Spam-Status header I got back on an uncaught spam. No,
hits=0.3 required=5.0. The spam was selling a
On 08/18/2016 08:48 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
On 8/18/2016 1:35 PM, Joe Quinn wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:27 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I haven't figured out a way to get Thunderbird to allow me to
copy/paste the headers. But I did look at all of the headers. There
are no headers in the email with name
Am 18.08.2016 um 21:08 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
On 8/18/2016 1:50 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is encouraging. I looked up how to set recursion in Bind. It
looks like it's just requires adding a field to the options:
|allow-recursion { any;
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
On 8/18/2016 12:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
There are also potential DNS issues that may contribute. In addition to
describing your environment, perhaps you could post the X-Spam-Status
header from a couple of the low-scoring spams.
John,
This is t
Am 18.08.2016 um 21:05 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
I see the local.cf file, it is already configured with 'all report'.
But I looked at a msg that was flagged a spam. It doesn't have a report
header either. I guess it's possible that the JAMES invoker mailet is
stripping the headers. But I don't
On 8/18/2016 1:50 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is encouraging. I looked up how to set recursion in Bind. It
looks like it's just requires adding a field to the options:
|allow-recursion { any; }; |But it lists other options such as
allow-quer
On 8/18/2016 1:45 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:21 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:18 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is the X-Spam-Status header I got back on an uncaught spam. No,
hits=0.3 required=5.0. The spam was selling an all-in-one charger
we need the *report*
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is encouraging. I looked up how to set recursion in Bind. It
looks like it's just requires adding a field to the options:
|allow-recursion { any; }; |But it lists other options such as
allow-query, allow-query-cache, etc. Is recursion the o
On 8/18/2016 1:35 PM, Joe Quinn wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:27 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I haven't figured out a way to get Thunderbird to allow me to
copy/paste the headers. But I did look at all of the headers. There
are no headers in the email with names like you mentioned. There is
only the X-Sp
On 8/18/2016 2:21 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:18 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is the X-Spam-Status header I got back on an uncaught spam. No,
hits=0.3 required=5.0. The spam was selling an all-in-one charger
we need the *report* header
By default, the report header is o
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:27 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
On 8/18/2016 1:17 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example uncaught spam message. SA
scored it a 4.7. http://pastebin.com/T1CfVgP4
useless without any headers which wou
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. I'll try to reply with what I know. But I
purchased a package "SpamAssassin In A Box" from JAM Software.
I hate to say this, but - perhaps you should be asking JAM *first*...
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example u
On 8/18/2016 1:23 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2016-08-18 20:10, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example uncaught spam message. SA
scored it a 4.7. http://pastebin.com/T1CfVgP4
MISSING_DATE: 1.00
DCC_BULK: 2.00
MISSING_TO: 2.00
MISSING_MID: 2.50
MISSING_SUBJECT: 2.00
w
On 8/18/2016 2:27 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I haven't figured out a way to get Thunderbird to allow me to
copy/paste the headers. But I did look at all of the headers. There
are no headers in the email with names like you mentioned. There is
only the X-Spam-Status header and X-Spam-Flag header
On 8/18/2016 1:17 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example uncaught spam message. SA
scored it a 4.7. http://pastebin.com/T1CfVgP4
useless without any headers which would show the matching rules
including major mista
On 2016-08-18 20:10, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example uncaught spam message. SA
scored it a 4.7. http://pastebin.com/T1CfVgP4
MISSING_DATE: 1.00
DCC_BULK: 2.00
MISSING_TO: 2.00
MISSING_MID: 2.50
MISSING_SUBJECT: 2.00
was what it scored as in pastebin, rspamd test
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:18 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
This is the X-Spam-Status header I got back on an uncaught spam. No,
hits=0.3 required=5.0. The spam was selling an all-in-one charger
we need the *report* header
What kind of DNS issues? I lease a server from Peer1 and use their name
servers.
On 2016-08-18 2:10 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. I'll try to reply with what I know. But
I purchased a package "SpamAssassin In A Box" from JAM Software. I ran
the installer, and that's it. I'm sorry that I don't know more. But I
don't know much about the inner work
On 8/18/2016 12:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I installed the latest SpamAssassin In a Box yesterday (Win Server
2008 r2). I kept all of the defaults. It is up and running. But I'm
getting a huge amount of spam, and I mean 'obvious' spam mentioning
body
Am 18.08.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jerry Malcolm:
Here is a pastebin.com link to an example uncaught spam message. SA
scored it a 4.7. http://pastebin.com/T1CfVgP4
useless without any headers which would show the matching rules
including major mistakes like URIBL_BLOCKED
but even passing that "
Thanks for the quick response. I'll try to reply with what I know. But
I purchased a package "SpamAssassin In A Box" from JAM Software. I ran
the installer, and that's it. I'm sorry that I don't know more. But I
don't know much about the inner workings. I was just hoping it would work.
I
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I installed the latest SpamAssassin In a Box yesterday (Win Server 2008 r2).
I kept all of the defaults. It is up and running. But I'm getting a huge
amount of spam, and I mean 'obvious' spam mentioning body parts in the
subject line that are get
On 08/18/2016 06:47 PM, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
I installed the latest SpamAssassin In a Box yesterday (Win Server 2008
r2). I kept all of the defaults. It is up and running. But I'm
getting a huge amount of spam, and I mean 'obvious' spam mentioning body
parts in the subject line that are ge
I installed the latest SpamAssassin In a Box yesterday (Win Server 2008
r2). I kept all of the defaults. It is up and running. But I'm
getting a huge amount of spam, and I mean 'obvious' spam mentioning body
parts in the subject line that are getting low scores (averaging
about 15 uncaug
>Changed and Amavis has been restarted. I’ll check the headers on the next
>piece of spam to come through. Thanks
I’m still trying to figure out how illegitimate stuff like this is getting
through. It’s obviously a virus (which was caught) but then why did the email
get through? I see the flag
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
What exactly are SA headers supposed to look like?
On 19.08.14 13:05, John Hardin wrote:
SA headers look like this:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.138 tagged_above=-100 required=5
tests=[MISSING_MID=0.14, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.0
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
What exactly are SA headers supposed to look like?
SA headers look like this:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.138
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.138 tagged_above=-100 required=5
tests=[MISSING_MID=0.14, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, S
What exactly are SA headers supposed to look like? I’m still getting quite a
bit of spam coming through. It’s blocking quite a bit but I’m not so sure SA is
even doing its job. Is there maybe a way to just block everything from anything
.us? Stuff like this is being missed (what’s really amusin
>Use sa_tag_level_deflt = -100;
>All your emails will have the SpamAssassin headers.
Changed and Amavis has been restarted. I’ll check the headers on the next piece
of spam to come through. Thanks for the great help!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Greg Ledford
wrote:
>>Take a look at the "sa_tag_level_deflt" in your amavisd configuration
> file.
>
> $sa_tag_level_deflt = 5.5;
>
> $sa_tag2_level_deflt= 6.0;
>
> $sa_spam_subject_tag= '***POSSIBLE SPAM***';
>
> $sa_kill_level_deflt= 7.0;
>
>Take a look at the "sa_tag_level_deflt" in your amavisd configuration file.
$sa_tag_level_deflt = 5.5;
$sa_tag2_level_deflt= 6.0;
$sa_spam_subject_tag= '***POSSIBLE SPAM***';
$sa_kill_level_deflt= 7.0;
I did. I bumped the levels a bit because they were catching some legitimate
e
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into
your mail infrastructure.
Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report.
If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Greg Ledford
wrote:
>
> It should just be called by Amavis directly. Sometimes it scans and
> sometimes it doesn't. I just found another obvious piece of email that SA
> and Amavis scanned and missed. I tried to attach the headers but they are
> so blatant that th
>They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into
>your mail infrastructure.
>Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report.
>If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note that
>the mention of Amavis in the Receiv
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S
>> Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
>> very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
>> know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
>Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by SA.
>Do messages that SA *does* p
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of very
obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I know I missed
something somewhere. Thanks.
Received: from es300.phhwtechnology.com (10.0.1.3) by mail.phhwtechnology.com
(10.0.1.5) with Microsoft SMTP Se
51 matches
Mail list logo
