On 27.06.20 00:46, Marc Roos wrote:
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
that have already been processed by a previous milter.
Maybe set a message header and whitelist on this message header?
I would not trust such header.
but I maintain a few postfix
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 00:46 +0200, Marc Roos wrote:
>
> What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
> that have already been processed by a previous milter.
>
If you've already whitelisted a message and want it to bypass SA, then
you will, by definition, have total
On 6/26/20 4:46 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
that have already been processed by a previous milter.
I'm confused. My knee jerk reaction is that's an MTA configuration
issue. But I don't think it can be that simple. I can't think
What would be the best practice to whitelist / not process, messages
that have already been processed by a previous milter.
Maybe set a message header and whitelist on this message header?
RW wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:01:37 +0200
Henrik K wrote:
But if one wanted to check the forwarders after hermes.apache.org
properly, it would make more sense to add it in internal_networks,
since practicall it acts as the outer MX for you. That would enable
proper blacklist checks too.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:01:37 +0200
Henrik K wrote:
> But if one wanted to check the forwarders after hermes.apache.org
> properly, it would make more sense to add it in internal_networks,
> since practicall it acts as the outer MX for you. That would enable
> proper blacklist checks too.
Mostly
On 2019-12-19 17:04, Henrik K wrote:
Thinking about it more, atleast SPF would break, so not the best idea..
:-)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
localhost.junc.eu
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2, required=5.0, Autolearn=ham
autolearn_force=no,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 06:01:37PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> But if one wanted to check the forwarders after hermes.apache.org properly,
> it would make more sense to add it in internal_networks, since practicall it
> acts as the outer MX for you. That would enable proper blacklist checks
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:58:42PM +, RW wrote:
>
> Because the trusted network outside of the internal network is trusted
> not to be under the control of a spammer, but you can't generally
> trust what's relayed through it. Forwarders that are listed at
> all usually have a low level of
Sorry, sent the previous one accidently.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:36:28 +
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:49:34 +0200
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:43:43PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> > >
> > > hermes.apache.org[207.244.88.153] which sends these list mails is
> > >
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2019-12-19 14:00:
not needed when you don't scan.
And I don't recommend training bayes with mailing list data, especially
not
SA-users.
how to tell spamassassin that maillist should not be bayes learned when
sa still is used on that maillists would be
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:49:34 +0200
Henrik K wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:43:43PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > hermes.apache.org[207.244.88.153] which sends these list mails is
> > also supposed to hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, not _NONE? Your setup seems
> > wonky.
>
> Answering myself,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2019-12-19 12:03:
one of ways is not to pass mail received from 207.244.88.153 to
spamassassin.
On 19.12.19 12:30, Benny Pedersen wrote:
loosing bayes ham training
not needed when you don't scan.
And I don't recommend training bayes with mailing list data,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2019-12-19 12:03:
one of ways is not to pass mail received from 207.244.88.153 to
spamassassin.
loosing bayes ham training
On 19.12.19 16:34, Philip wrote:
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by
fantomas.fantomas.sk (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-14~deb10u1) with SMTP id
xBJ3YZWh032473 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 04:34:44 +0100
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
From: Philip
Subject: White listing
Henrik K skrev den 2019-12-19 11:43:
or maybe just give more score negative to MAILING_LIST_MULTI ?
Normal SA rules will hit USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL, due to "def_whitelist_auth
*@*.apache.org". Have you cleared these or why is it not hitting for
you?
if trusted_networks includes apache org ip
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:43:43PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> hermes.apache.org[207.244.88.153] which sends these list mails is also
> supposed to hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, not _NONE? Your setup seems wonky.
Answering myself, DNSWL uses firsttrusted, so you've probably have some
Apache stuff in
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:15:42AM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Philip skrev den 2019-12-19 04:34:
> >How do I white list this mailing list for some reason all the messages
> >are now going to spam.
>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on localhost.junc.eu
>
Philip skrev den 2019-12-19 04:34:
How do I white list this mailing list for some reason all the messages
are now going to spam.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
localhost.junc.eu
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0, required=5.0, Autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no,
On 18 Dec 2019, at 22:34, Philip wrote:
How do I white list this mailing list for some reason all the messages
are now going to spam.
If you can whitelist on arbitrary headers:
List-Id:
Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org
If you know what exactly is causing the
How do I white list this mailing list for some reason all the messages
are now going to spam.
I've enabled outgoing white listing using the TxRep plugin is there a
way to find out if outbound emails are actually being white listed? A
log somewhere... a file being updated?
--
Phil
On Thursday 07 July 2011 16:46:42 Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Have you considered using Shortcircuit plugin?
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit
Partially I use it. I gave up for anything more than using it with
whitelist_from.
Hi all,
as per my current SA setup it takes quite a while until all tests are
over and the mail is delivered. Thus it seemed necessary to do some
white-listing to save time. The problem is: even though an address is
white-listed with whitelist_from, still DNS lookups are done, hashes
are computed
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:27 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
as per my current SA setup it takes quite a while until all tests are
over and the mail is delivered.
How are you running SA? If you're explicitly running 'spamassassin' ,
whether from a script, a procmail recipe or as a Postfix service
On Thursday 07 July 2011 09:52:36 Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:27 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
as per my current SA setup it takes quite a while until all tests are
over and the mail is delivered.
How are you running SA? If you're explicitly running 'spamassassin' ,
It seems that while processing an email from address, which is marked as
whitelist_auth, still hashes are computed. I've set shortcircuit
USER_IN_WHITELIST on and it works well (no hashes computed) if address is
marked as whitelist_from... Any idea on how to faster process mail form
adresses
On 2011-07-07 15:51, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
It seems that while processing an email from address, which is marked as
whitelist_auth, still hashes are computed. I've set shortcircuit
USER_IN_WHITELIST on and it works well (no hashes computed) if address is
marked as whitelist_from... Any idea on
On Thursday 07 July 2011 14:16:00 Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-07 16:10, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
If whitelist_auth, about 16 secs
(hashes are still computed and compared!).
I assume you're not using local resolver or you have a thin/throttled
pipe (many DSL routers dislike UDP floods).
That could
On 2011-07-07 16:39, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2011 14:16:00 Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-07 16:10, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
If whitelist_auth, about 16 secs
(hashes are still computed and compared!).
I assume you're not using local resolver or you have a thin/throttled
pipe (many DSL
Kārlis Repsons karlis.reps...@gmail.com wrote:
as per my current SA setup it takes quite a while until all tests are
over and the mail is delivered. Thus it seemed necessary to do some
white-listing to save time. The problem is: even though an address is
white-listed with whitelist_from, still
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2011 14:16:00 Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-07 16:10, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
If whitelist_auth, about 16 secs (hashes are still computed and
compared!).
I assume you're not using local resolver or you have a thin/throttled
pipe (many DSL
Bazooka Joe wrote:
I am trying (unsuccessfully) to write a rule to pickup if the
authenticated bits=0 in the Received line of the header and give it
-100
I am not sure if spamass-milter Version 0.3.1is passing the Received
line to SA.
Does anyone know if that works? Or a better way to do
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 00:16, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Bazooka Joe wrote:
I am trying (unsuccessfully) to write a rule to pickup if the
authenticated bits=0 in the Received line of the header and give it
-100
Does anyone know if that works? Or a better way
I am trying (unsuccessfully) to write a rule to pickup if the
authenticated bits=0 in the Received line of the header and give it
-100
I am not sure if spamass-milter Version 0.3.1is passing the Received
line to SA.
Does anyone know if that works? Or a better way to do it?
header
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Bazooka Joe wrote:
I am trying (unsuccessfully) to write a rule to pickup if the
authenticated bits=0 in the Received line of the header and give it
-100
Does anyone know if that works? Or a better way to do it?
header LOCAL_AUTH_RCVD2Received =~ /authenticated
Hello all,
I am looking for an easy way for my spamassassin to relearn messages
marked as spam that users would like to get. Would it be safe and avoid
bayesian poisoning if I were to setup an email box such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and have users forward nonspam emails to this email
address and
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:50:27 -0500, Kyle Quillen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello all,
I am looking for an easy way for my spamassassin to relearn messages
marked as spam that users would like to get. Would it be safe and avoid
bayesian poisoning if I were to setup an email box such as
[EMAIL
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Forwarding is not a good idea, it adds and or changes the headers in
the mail.
Forward as attachment(s) could be a solution since original mail headers
are kept intact. I've asked a similar question on this list some days
ago, but nobody could say if there's a common
Alexander Veit wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Forwarding is not a good idea, it adds and or changes the headers in
the mail.
Forward as attachment(s) could be a solution since original mail
headers are kept intact. I've asked a similar question on this list
some days ago, but nobody could
I am looking for an easy way for my spamassassin to relearn messages
marked as spam that users would like to get. Would it be
safe and avoid
bayesian poisoning if I were to setup an email box such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and have users forward nonspam emails to this email
address and then
Forwarding is not a good idea, it adds and or changes the
headers in
the mail.
Forward as attachment(s) could be a solution since original mail
headers are kept intact. I've asked a similar question on this list
some days ago, but nobody could say if there's a common practice how
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:33 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: White Listing
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Forwarding is not a good idea, it adds and or changes the
headers in
the mail.
Forward as attachment(s) could be a solution since original
mail
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:51:09PM -0800, Bret Miller wrote:
There was a script posted a while back as an example of how you could
[...]
my @message = STDIN;
[...]
my $msg = Mail::SpamAssassin::Message-new(
{
'message' = [EMAIL PROTECTED],
}
fwiw, Message will read from
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[...]
Not really. It's actually a fairly good system if you have an IMAP server.
You create IMAP folders for spam and ham. These can be shared or individual
for each user. The users then copy any mis-categorized mail to these
folders. A program on the SpamAssassin server
Alexander Veit wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[...]
Not really. It's actually a fairly good system if you have an IMAP
server.
You create IMAP folders for spam and ham. These can be shared or
individual for each user. The users then copy any mis-categorized
mail to these folders.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Alexander Veit wrote:
However, our incoming mail gateway that runs SA is located in the
DMZ, whereas user mailboxes are on severs that belong to the
internal network. I think in this scenario it's easier to work
with spam reporting mails and the scipts that where posted by
Bret Miller wrote:
I am looking for an easy way for my spamassassin to relearn messages
marked as spam that users would like to get. Would it be
safe and avoid
bayesian poisoning if I were to setup an email box such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and have users forward nonspam emails to this email
On Tue, November 14, 2006 19:00, SM wrote:
See whitelist_from_dk [EMAIL PROTECTED] example.com
for me this is not possible with domainkeys
but only with dkim
--
This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.
I keep getting my yahoo groups account shut down because of too many
bounces. For one thing, their mail server is listed:
Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.147.64.135
Is there a recommended method for dealing with mailing lists where the
mail may come from any number of mail
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:01:12AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
Can their use of DomainKeys be used in my scoring?
Sorry, that was more of *should* their use... -- I'm not clear
on the use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DomainKeys.
--
Bill Moseley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:01, Bill Moseley wrote:
I keep getting my yahoo groups account shut down because of too many
bounces. For one thing, their mail server is listed:
Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.147.64.135
Is there a recommended method for dealing with
At 07:01 14-11-2006, Bill Moseley wrote:
Should I try and white list the hosts? Or better to give a large
negative score?
Yes, if you don't receive spam from these hosts.
Can their use of DomainKeys be used in my scoring?
See whitelist_from_dk [EMAIL PROTECTED] example.com
The signing
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:42:58PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:01, Bill Moseley wrote:
I keep getting my yahoo groups account shut down because of too many
bounces. For one thing, their mail server is listed:
Blocked - see
whitelist_from_rcvd *.mail.mud.yahoo.com *.bullet.scd.yahoo.com
On Tue, November 14, 2006 19:21, Bill Moseley wrote:
Unless YOUR machine is bouncing them, your SA will not help. Spamcap is
usually the culprit and is being used by Yahoo.
ip is listed so:
Resolved 69.147.64.135 to n20c.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com.
[n20c.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com. has 1 MX record .(0)]
On Tue, November 14, 2006 19:25, wrote:
whitelist_from_rcvd *.mail.mud.yahoo.com *.bullet.scd.yahoo.com
wish it was that simple :(
spamassassin will still check spamcop
but may not say its spam and thus accept it
--
This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i whitelist with trusted_networks
...
add ALL yahoo.com outgoing ip to trusted_networks in spamassassin solves it,
but who knows there ip's ?
That probably isn't doing what you think it is.
trusted_networks isn't a whitelist. It doesn't mean you trust them not
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, wrote:
whitelist_from_rcvd *.mail.mud.yahoo.com *.bullet.scd.yahoo.com
Um shouldn't that first component be in address format?
EG:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] yahoo.com
Also that second argument doesn't need that '*'. It already
patern matches
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:21:02 -0800, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
Yes, it is my machine rejecting the mail that is flagged spam.
And when I reject too many messages Yahoo's mailing list software
considers my email non-working and stops delivering list messages.
Snap! I have the
Hi,
We have co-hosted a domain on my friend's server (qmail). Now, the ISP
provides SA 2.61 with each users having their own pref file managed
through a GUI. But some of my client's mails were being marked as SPAM.
So, I requested the admin to whitelist that client's domain. He said
he will put
61 matches
Mail list logo
