On 19/07/2022 09:49, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
At the very least they let you know that a message was rejected.
I can then go look at my MTAs logs and deduce why message(s) were
rejected with more authority than anything the MLM could tell me.
Is that what you tell your customers? I'm
On 7/18/22 5:30 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Which is a joke, because it does not, and qmails ezmlm has never
included enough of the headers telling us _why_ we rejected it.
Your opinion of the notification doesn't change the intention behind the
notification.
Most of the notifications that I see
On 19/07/2022 09:12, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
Every version of what you describe that I've looked at has been the
courtesy message.
Which is a joke, because it does not, and qmails ezmlm has never
included enough of the headers telling us _why_ we rejected it.
But seriously folks, why
On 7/18/22 4:23 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
Don't know why this didn't go through.
chuckle
The copy with your comment /did/. But I suppose the message that
prompted you to make the comment didn't.
That is what it is SUPPOSED to be. What it actually is is something else.
Every version of what
Don't know why this didn't go through.
On 2022 Jul 13, at 12:24, Grant Taylor via users
wrote:
> On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce did not
>> come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP addresses, no
>>
On 14/07/2022 17:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Noel Butler skrev den 2022-07-14 00:38:
ezmlm has been long brain dead, I particularly like its messages
saying its reject message but never tells you the actual 5xx code.
I aint about to go through 2019's logs to find out why either :)
Noel Butler skrev den 2022-07-14 00:38:
ezmlm has been long brain dead, I particularly like its messages
saying its reject message but never tells you the actual 5xx code.
I aint about to go through 2019's logs to find out why either :)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 14/07/2022 04:24, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce did
not come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP
addresses, no Received headers, nothing that could possibly be used to
On 7/13/22 12:19 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
So, a supposed bounce from also three years ago. And that bounce
did not come from my mail server as I have never run qmail. No IP
addresses, no Received headers, nothing that could possibly be used
to figure out what is going on here.
I think this is a
On 2022 Jul 12, at 13:08, users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote:
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
>
>
> Messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
> have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
> message I
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 18:40 -0800, Robert Hanson wrote:
Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
karsten,
woooh!
you are welcome! :-)
since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
From a bunch of mail admins?
To contact LIST-owner@ [1] and summon
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 19:09 +0100, wolfgang wrote:
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Evan Platt wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
Won't work, AFAIK. You need
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:53 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Appears the bounce, any email addresses and the attached original are
*severely* munged. Spotted a hint, need this to generate a direct
bounce.
Will unsubscribe the offender, if I can track it down.
On 23.01.10 21:18,
On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm it.
Otherwise, you would be able to unsubscribe anyone :)
On Sun 24 Jan 2010 05:55:21 PM CET, Evan Platt wrote
Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm it.
Otherwise, you would be able to unsubscribe anyone :)
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?, or did it, but apache.org
did not see the problem in maillist ?
not
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Evan Platt wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:56 AM, wolfgang wrote:
I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
Won't work, AFAIK. You need to reply to the unsub request to confirm
it. Otherwise,
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
You are right, concerning mails to users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.org
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?
As stated before: because the MTA of the recipient sends bounces to the
address in the From: header line
In an older episode (Sunday, 24. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
You are right, concerning mails to users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.org
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?
As stated before: because the MTA of the recipient sends bounces to the
address in the From: header line
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
why did the bounce not go to apache.org ?, or did it, but apache.org did not
see the problem in maillist ?
Because we have a caching server accepting the mail, and then when it
*finally* decides the client is not going to retrieve the mail, it
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status Notification
(Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still subscribed to the
list?
- rh
In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), RobertH wrote:
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status
Notification (Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still
subscribed to the list?
Probably because the bounces go to the message authors
On Sat 23 Jan 2010 07:35:43 PM CET, RobertH wrote
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status Notification
(Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still subscribed to the
list?
it does not bounce to apache org, only to subscribers :)
just hoped that maillist-owner
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:21 +0100, wolfgang wrote:
In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), RobertH wrote:
why is the account or accounts that create the Delivery Status
Notification (Failure) bounces from administra...@willspc.net still
subscribed to the list?
Yes, complaining
In an older episode (Saturday, 23. January 2010), Benny Pedersen wrote:
just hoped that maillist-owner is a subscriber aswell and post more
here to see the problem
I sent an unsubscription request for the address in question to
users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org.
I hope that's more effective
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 20:53 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Appears the bounce, any email addresses and the attached original are
*severely* munged. Spotted a hint, need this to generate a direct
bounce.
Will unsubscribe the offender, if I can track it down.
Done. How nice of them to
Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
karsten,
woooh!
you are welcome! :-)
since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
this isnt the first post to the list about it...
there was another thread or two about it in the recent past... i.e. 1 to 3
From: R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net
Sent: Saturday, 2010/January/23 18:40
Yes, complaining instead of notifying the right people. Way to go!
karsten,
woooh!
you are welcome! :-)
since i dont know who it is, what do you expect?
this isnt the first post to the list about it...
Original-Envelope-ID: c=US;a=
;p=HUNDREDACREWOOD;l=CHRISROBIN-100111200457Z-1594
Reporting-MTA: dns; chrisrobin.hundredacrewood.local
Final-Recipient: RFC822;
figuring the answer is here, if anywhere
1) your MTA bounces, becouse your users mailboxes are full.
Of the two questions, this one is closest, but it's not the MTA that
generates the bounce. The MTA has handed off the message for delivery to
individual recipients after accepting the DATA
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79
John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
Yep. I wish backscatter.org had a reporting and educating form. Ie
automaticaly inform the postmaster of that system of the listing
incuding educational material how to fix it.
Btw
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:09, John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
here i have seen 25 of this bouncers, i have added his sender ip into postfwd
client_address until its resolved, i
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 10:09 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:09, John Hardin wrote:
Is anybody else getting bounces on mail they send to the list from
cas...@snigelpost.org?
If so, can we get him unsubscribed?
here i have seen 25 of this bouncers, i have added his sender ip
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:34, John Hardin wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't help anybody else that posts to the list.
it will if admins at remote read there logs, but yes we can only wait now
--
xpoint
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 19:32 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:48, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 19:32 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Taking care of that, already poked the almighty admins.
FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
so now thay using postfix ?, fixing valid recipient maps is
FYI, they took care about this issue. Quite speedy. :)
so now thay using postfix ?, fixing valid recipient maps is dangerous :)
What are you talking about, Benny? The ASF admins have removed the
offending address from the list's subscribers.
Anyway, this horse is now dead. Please stop
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
I started blocking some backscattering hosts and would like to inform
them how to fix the issue.
I still welcome suggestions for handling the few remaining cases where my
procmail chokes on a mailbox limit. Probably more of a PM question than an
SA
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 25, 2009 19:34, John Hardin wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't help anybody else that posts to the list.
it will if admins at remote read there logs, but yes we can only wait now
If they do, they don't act very quickly. I've been rejecting
) your MTA bounces, becouse your users mailboxes are full.
Defer (temporary reject) the message at smtp time, so the sending MTA
retrys a few times and ultimatly gives up informing the REAL sender.
(you could also reject permanently, if you want that)
If you absolutely can't fix the MTA
Diverting from the original question...
Spamassassin is now down to *ONLY* 45% of cpu or thereabouts...
Use spamc/spamd!
According to your OP, you are calling spamassassin, forking a new
heavy-weight process for each mail. This comes with a considerable
start-up penalty. You can get rid of
recieve
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18961801.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18962993.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18962995.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, theWoosh wrote:
/etc/postfix/main had mailbox_size_limit set to 11 megs - can't believe this
is the default! All 3 users are on holiday, so this is the first time this
limit had been reached...
upped it to half a gig and now the mail is getting through
11 messages?
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 06:24 -0700, theWoosh wrote:
/etc/postfix/main had mailbox_size_limit set to 11 megs
That isn't a default value: the Postfix default is 5120, 50 MB. The
mailbox_size_limit parameter is not defined in the default main.cf for
the current version of Postfix (2.4.5) so if
is now down to *ONLY* 45% of cpu or thereabouts...
they get a LOT of spam :-)
Cheers
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-failure-causing-mail-bounces-tp18961801p18963976.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Alex Woick writes:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
: jm 5...; ./spamassassin -D -Lt /home/jm/DL/m346c7979.txt
Yes I did, and all the other backscatter is detected by vbounce fine:
whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
But now I saw the Message-Id contained my local mail server name from
whitelist_bounce_relays:
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The lxrouter.wombaz.localnet can only
On Fri, June 6, 2008 14:33, Alex Woick wrote:
whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
should be ok if its public dns
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
postfix add $myhostname here
For the time being, I solved the problem by removing
lxrouter.wombaz.localnet from
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
added
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
added
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
Well it says SHOULD. So actually your system is
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
postfix add mta hostname to message-id if
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
This has
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
so what?
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
On Friday 06 June 2008 00:11:37 mouss wrote:
postfix adds missing (mandatory) headers because it works as a
submission MTA, because this is how sendmail has always worked. This
behaviour is no more desirable for an MX (it is good for an MSA).
Right now i get your point. I thought you where
At 15:25 05-06-2008, David B Funk wrote:
However RFC-2821, section 6.3 (Compensating for Irregularities) says
that the originating SMTP server may add a message-id field when none
appears. So if qmail is the first SMTP server to fondle the message
it could/(should?) add a message-id.
It's up
received.
If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the users mailing list,
without further notice.
I've kept a list of which messages from the users mailing list have
bounced from your address.
etc
but I don't send messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
have been bouncing.
What do I have to do to resolve the problem?
Andrea
Andrea
If you are using SA on your mail server, make sure that you whitelist all
the lists that you are subscribed to... sometimes they will be
what you are trying to do here, then legitimate bounce messages
will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
their service. (and if you don't, you'll be creating backscatter)
If I achieved what I'm trying there should been that much of problem:
.- Only bounces generated
, then legitimate bounce messages
will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
their service. (and if you don't, you'll be creating backscatter)
If I achieved what I'm trying there should been that much of problem:
.- Only bounces generated by spammy mails would be marked as spam
the VBounce rules before posting, but those rules are to stop the
bounces reaching any of my servers , what I want to do is to use the default
filter set with the bounces my own server is generating cause of the spam
filters of my customers.
The mails generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] contain the typical
I think it might be easier if you would simply have a conversation with
the techy folks at your customers- invite them to configure THEIR system
so that either everything from YOUR system is OK no matter what spam
status it has (they can route it to bit-bucket or whatever) or turn off
the
On 8/22/07, Kevin Parris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it might be easier if you would simply have a conversation with
the techy folks at your customers- invite them to configure THEIR system
so that either everything from YOUR system is OK no matter what spam
status it has (they can route
It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
what happens that creates a problem.
You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
spam coming from you? Is that what happens?
Visit them and take a big club with you. It's obviously *completely*
On 8/22/07, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
what happens that creates a problem.
You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
spam coming from you? Is that what happens?
Visit them and take
On 8/22/07, Noel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/22/07, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
what happens that creates a problem.
You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
spam coming
Hello,
It must been asked before, but I couldn't find any suitable, will be glad if
you point me somewhere...
In our company we have the (mailer-exchange - spam-scanner - customers
with their own mail servers) topology.
We relay mail to them but some of them don't have the spam service with us
Hello,
It must been asked before, but I couldn't find any
suitable, will be glad if you point me somewhere...
In our company we have the (mailer-exchange -
spam-scanner - customers with their own mail servers)
topology.
We relay mail to them but some of them don't have the
spam
Really the only way to solve this properly is to stop providing relay
service. Relay service is a non-op in the current spam war. If you
do what you are trying to do here, then legitimate bounce messages
will also be dropped and thus you'll be decreasing the quality of
their service.
I'm full of questions tonight. Looks like the joe-job against me is running
full force again, thanks to the VBounce rule set they're not going into my
spam folder as to be run against my reporting script. However, would it
cause any harm if these were run against my other script which reports
Is there anyone who has a working scenario in where double bounces are
stripped from the two bounce messages (thus containing only the original
spam mesage) and fed to sa-learn?
These got tagged as spam the first time they arrived on the server, but
since they double bounced, I wanna put them
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
sa-stats.pl which included several BAYES
At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
, but that
would be too mean. :-D
I am pretty good at detecting fakes, I believe. Besides bounces from
individual people get a procmail rule to bypass all further testing
on all future emails from that domain on their way to /dev/null. I am
not forgiving of mail bounces.
Of course, since it is easy
On 7/21/06 at 3:04 PM Evan Platt wrote:
At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:28, John Andersen wrote:
Replying to myself...
It looks upon further inspection that this guy is the problem. He
seems to be routing mail back to the list or something:
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:49:49 -0400
--
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The
headers shows :)
I'm quite prepared to believe this is a MS bug, it certainly looks like it.
But it seems to be a long term one - seen in emails from SMTPSVC versions
5.0.2195.6713 and 6.0.3790.1830. Remote MS servers, configured for
foreign languages, sending genuine non-spam bounces to non-spam
it.
But it seems to be a long term one - seen in emails from SMTPSVC versions
5.0.2195.6713 and 6.0.3790.1830. Remote MS servers, configured for
foreign languages, sending genuine non-spam bounces to non-spam mails
cause SA to FP on this rule.
Nick
Nick,
As much as I'd like to say yeah, it's
Microsoft SMTPSVC seems to trigger BAD_ENC_HEADER when sending bounces if
it's been given a non-English bounce template (or whatever M$ use for
configuring that). Even bounces to correctly encoded mail. I've got quite
a number of examples, and all of them have a foreign language Subject
line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Leverton wrote:
[snip]
Subject: =3D?unicode-1-1-utf-7?Q?+kU1P4XK2YUuQGnfl- =20
(+MKgw6TD8-)?=3D
Aside from the QP scatter, this subject doesn't look like it's properly
encoded. if memory serves, if the encoded subject needs to be
Could somebody please remote that guy from the list?
mfg zmi
-- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem: --
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Date: Freitag, 12. Mai 2006 00:40
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Having gotten the spam under control, I found that I was getting
bombed with tons of bounces as well. So I made up a quick ruleset
to stop undeliverables due to the german spam, using Raymond's
ruleset as a starting point. You can get it here:
I was working
not all bounces include info about the original message, but
this might help cut down some of them, maybe?
Any comments?
Thanks
Matthew
--
Matthew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UNIX and e-mail Systems Administrator, Network Support Section,
Computer Centre, University of Leicester,
Leicester LE1
Look at Time Jackson's Bogus Virus Warning ruleset. It is designed to catch
backscatter of this general sort. Might not handle your exact case, but
worth a try.
Loren
Matthew Newton wrote:
What would be the benefits of creating rules that fired on bounce
messages only (i.e. came from ), and hit stuff like this. Are there
any reasons why giving a score of 10 when matching Spam-Score:
on a bounce would cause a real bounce to get rejected?
Yes, if the
, but with the volume so high
LS they all tend to be ignored/deleted.
Check out http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
It will at least catch the virus-related bounces, and IMO with help
from other rules should catch a fair number of spam bounces.
Bob Menschel
the Postmaster messages, and
LS feel that they should be reviewed, but with the volume so high
LS they all tend to be ignored/deleted.
Check out http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
It will at least catch the virus-related bounces, and IMO with help
from other rules should catch
At 05:33 PM 2/10/2005, Jason Bennett wrote:
2. How can I reduce or even dump the bounces all together so my queue's
aren't filling up with junk bounces with invalid destinations?
Just don't use bouncing as a spam action at all if you filter after queue..
this is just a bad thing to do in general
Hi,
I have a question, and hope someone has a solution,
I run Spamassassin 2.63 site-wide with sendmail and spamass-milter.
When an email is marked as SPAM, the headers are added, and the subject
is changed, now lets assume some particular user has enabled Out of the
office , the bounced message
If you are that concerned about what information is revealed in out of
office autoreplies, you should not be allowing OoO autoreplies
externally anyway. They pose a far greater security risk in terms of
leaking information that can be used in social engineering attacks than
the risk you are
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
If you are that concerned about what information is revealed in out of
office autoreplies, you should not be allowing OoO autoreplies
externally anyway. They pose a far greater security risk in terms of
leaking information that can be used in social engineering attacks
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
