If you're going to engage with RH, leave me out of it.
On 2023-05-01 at 11:14:12 UTC-0400 (Mon, 1 May 2023 09:14:12 -0600)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
On May 1, 2023, at 3:48 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 30.04.23 um 20:54 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
On Apr 28, 2023, at
> On May 1, 2023, at 3:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 30.04.23 um 20:54 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 12:17 PM, Philip Prindeville
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Apr 28, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 28.04.23 um 18:11
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 12:17 PM, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.04.23 um 18:11 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
On 2023-04-24 at 16:32:55 UTC-0400
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 28.04.23 um 18:11 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>>> On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Bill Cole
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-04-24 at 16:32:55 UTC-0400 (Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:32:55 -0600)
>>> Philip Prindeville
>>> is rumored to have
On 2023-04-28 at 12:11:02 UTC-0400 (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:11:02 -0600)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
On 2023-04-24 at 16:32:55 UTC-0400 (Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:32:55 -0600)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
I thought the
> On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-24 at 16:32:55 UTC-0400 (Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:32:55 -0600)
> Philip Prindeville
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> I thought the matching included subdomains, and seem to remember that
>> working.
>
> It never has. At least not
On 2023-04-24 at 16:32:55 UTC-0400 (Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:32:55 -0600)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
I thought the matching included subdomains, and seem to remember that
working.
It never has. At least not in the past 17 years.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or
:32 PM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
Hi,
I have the following line:
whitelist_from_rcvd *@ceipalmm.com mailgun.net
And tried it on a message that had:
Return-Path:
But it didn't get whitelisted. If I change the pattern above to
"*@mg2.ceipalmm.com" it works. I thought the matchin
Oh, and this is on Fedora, so I'm running 3.4.6...
> On Apr 24, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have the following line:
>
> whitelist_from_rcvd *@ceipalmm.com mailgun.net
>
> And tried it on a message that had:
>
>
Hi,
I have the following line:
whitelist_from_rcvd *@ceipalmm.com mailgun.net
And tried it on a message that had:
Return-Path:
But it didn't get whitelisted. If I change the pattern above to
"*@mg2.ceipalmm.com" it works. I thought the matching included subdomains,
On 28.02.19 12:44, Helmut Schneider wrote:
>I'm trying to find out why a message sometimes hits
>whitelist_from_rcvd and sometimes does not. I checked the headers
>again and again but cannot see the difference.
>
>whitelist_from_rcvd quarant...@eu.quarantine.symantec.com
&
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:46:55 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 28.02.19 12:44, Helmut Schneider wrote:
> >I'm trying to find out why a message sometimes hits
> >whitelist_from_rcvd and sometimes does not. I checked the headers
> >again and again but cann
On 28.02.19 12:44, Helmut Schneider wrote:
I'm trying to find out why a message sometimes hits whitelist_from_rcvd
and sometimes does not. I checked the headers again and again but
cannot see the difference.
whitelist_from_rcvd quarant...@eu.quarantine.symantec.com messagelabs.com
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:44:16 +0100
Helmut Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to find out why a message sometimes hits
> whitelist_from_rcvd and sometimes does not. I checked the headers
> again and again but cannot see the difference.
I couldn't reproduce this with the
Hi,
I'm trying to find out why a message sometimes hits whitelist_from_rcvd
and sometimes does not. I checked the headers again and again but
cannot see the difference.
whitelist_from_rcvd quarant...@eu.quarantine.symantec.com messagelabs.com
whitelist_from_rcvd quarant
I'm trying to get the following line to work in my user_prefs file:
whitelist_from_rcvd *bankofamerica.com bankofamerica.com
Of course, this works:
whitelist_from *bankofamerica.com
So, the simple whitelist_from works, but the whitelist_from_rcvd does not
work. Why is this? Looks like I have
Am 29.08.2015 um 12:40 schrieb websiterepairguy.:
I'm trying to get the following line to work in my user_prefs file:
whitelist_from_rcvd*bankofamerica.com
http://bankofamerica.com/bankofamerica.com http://bankofamerica.com/
Of course, this works:
whitelist_from*bankofamerica.com http
Am 29.08.2015 um 13:46 schrieb RW:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:45:27 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.08.2015 um 12:40 schrieb websiterepairguy.:
I'm trying to get the following line to work in my user_prefs file:
whitelist_from_rcvd*bankofamerica.com
http://bankofamerica.com/bankofamerica.com
, the problem is the
rdn= .
SpamAssassin doesn't do its own rdns lookups, so if the information
isn't recorded in the received header by the server you can't use
whitelist_from_rcvd
agreed in conext of rdns, but even if it is resolved, the machines
sending as @ealerts.bankofamerica.com
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:45:27 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.08.2015 um 12:40 schrieb websiterepairguy.:
I'm trying to get the following line to work in my user_prefs file:
whitelist_from_rcvd*bankofamerica.com
http://bankofamerica.com/bankofamerica.com
http://bankofamerica.com
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Header of test message, massaged for privacy, is here:
http://pastebin.com/EV6g15aN
I have this in user_prefs:
trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
[...lots snipped...]
whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Why is the whitelist not firing
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:37:29 +0100,
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Ian trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
Ian [...lots snipped...]
Ian whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Mark It seems the:
Mark Received: (from itz@localhost)
Mark by myalias.trusted.mx (8.14.4/8.14.4
Am 27.02.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
Header of test message, massaged for privacy, is here:
http://pastebin.com/EV6g15aN
I have this in user_prefs:
trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
[...lots snipped...]
whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Why is the whitelist
Am 28.02.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:37:29 +0100,
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Ian trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
Ian [...lots snipped...]
Ian whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Mark It seems the:
Mark Received: (from itz
http://pastebin.com/EV6g15aN
I have this in user_prefs:
trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
[...lots snipped...]
whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Why is the whitelist not firing?
It seems the:
Received: (from itz@localhost)
by myalias.trusted.mx (8.14.4/8.14.4
Ian Zimmerman skrev den 2015-02-28 16:53:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:37:29 +0100,
Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Ian trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
Ian [...lots snipped...]
Ian whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Mark It seems the:
Mark Received: (from itz@localhost
Header of test message, massaged for privacy, is here:
http://pastebin.com/EV6g15aN
I have this in user_prefs:
trusted_networks 198.1.2.3/32
[...lots snipped...]
whitelist_from_rcvd *@wetransfer.com *.wetransfer.com
Why is the whitelist not firing?
--
Please *no* private copies
will source from an IP address that will cause
it to score above 5. ...
I would like to use whitelist_from_rcvd as the envelope from
(RFC5321.MailFrom) and sending system is not exactly static, but
close enough that the globing should work. The issue is that SA is
running on our MXes via a milter
would like to use whitelist_from_rcvd as the envelope from
(RFC5321.MailFrom) and sending system is not exactly static, but close
enough that the globing should work. The issue is that SA is running on
our MXes via a milter and since SA (and these boxes) only see MX traffic,
trusted_networks
-heel of milters).
Are the messages DKIM authenticated? (Either DK signed or SPF listed)?
IE can you use whitelist_auth ? It's more reliable than whitelist_from_rcvd
which depends upon finding the correct DNS names of all the SMTP exit points.
It also depends upon the Envelope From address being
I need to whitelist a sender, and I typically use whitelist_from_rcvd,
but it's not working in this case, and I suspect because rDNS fails:
Received: from ideascollide1.ablehost.com (unknown [208.81.177.83])
Is the next best approach to create a rule that deducts points or is
there another
Hi,
I need to whitelist a sender, and I typically use whitelist_from_rcvd,
but it's not working in this case, and I suspect because rDNS fails:
Received: from ideascollide1.ablehost.com (unknown [208.81.177.83])
Is the next best approach to create a rule that deducts points
Hi,
I need to whitelist a sender, and I typically use whitelist_from_rcvd,
but it's not working in this case, and I suspect because rDNS fails:
Received: from ideascollide1.ablehost.com (unknown [208.81.177.83])
Is the next best approach to create a rule that deducts points
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:44:09PM -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I need to whitelist a sender, and I typically use whitelist_from_rcvd,
but it's not working in this case, and I suspect because rDNS fails:
Received: from ideascollide1.ablehost.com (unknown [208.81.177.83])
Is the next best
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:49:15AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:44:09PM -0500, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I need to whitelist a sender, and I typically use whitelist_from_rcvd,
but it's not working in this case, and I suspect because rDNS fails:
Received: from
, in the interests of being friendly, will this work?
whitelist_from_rcvd *@* smtpout.zixmail.net
(no, they don't have spf :-) and even if they did, it would not work
anyway since they 'forge' the email address of the sender's domain.
Received: from smtpout.zixmail.net (smtpout.zixmail.net [63.71.8.106
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Seems zixmail has not only decided to bastardize 'email' off the net, but
now, when informing someone they got one, makes suck bad freeking headers
that SA wants to tag it spam. take the bayes credit out and you have 8 points
on a legit email.
, in the interests of being friendly, will this work?
whitelist_from_rcvd *@* smtpout.zixmail.net
It should.
Perhaps that should go in the default whitelist. Open a bug?
Received: from smtpout.zixmail.net (smtpout.zixmail.net [63.71.8.106]) (using
TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits
On ons 28 jul 2010 17:37:51 CEST, Jeff Mincy wrote
meta __TRUSTED_NETWORKS (NO_RELAYS || ALL_TRUSTED)
header __LOCAL_SENDER From =~ /\...@mydomain\.com/i
that can and will be forged in its own, to solve:
header __LOCAL_SENDER Return-Path:addr =~ /\...@mydomain\.com/i
mta newer sets
On ons 28 jul 2010 19:21:53 CEST, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote
What is the best way to completely whitelist all internal emails so that
there is no danger of any internal emails being blacklisted
The best way is to not feed internal emails to SpamAssassin.
best as in ones own ip can be
whitelist_from_rcvd is applicable to whitelisting internal
mail??
as I said, it is not. you can whitelist only mail coming from remote
network, your mail did not.
Couple of things to note , we use Active Directory which means the FQDN
name
of all our machines end in *.local rather than *.com. Should
Hi there ,
Having some trouble getting this to work correctly , it would seem..
Firstly, here is my whitelist_from rcvd config from my local.cf file.
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.local
trusted_networks 172.16.1/24 172.16.2/24 172.16.3/24 172.16.5/24 xx.xx.xx.xx
On 28.07.10 07:57, keithcommins wrote:
Having some trouble getting this to work correctly , it would seem..
Firstly, here is my whitelist_from rcvd config from my local.cf file.
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.local
trusted_networks 172.16.1/24 172.16.2/24 172.16.3
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 28.07.10 07:57, keithcommins wrote:
Having some trouble getting this to work correctly , it would seem..
Firstly, here is my whitelist_from rcvd config from my local.cf file.
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.local
On 28.7.2010 17:57, keithcommins wrote:
Hi there ,
Having some trouble getting this to work correctly , it would seem..
Firstly, here is my whitelist_from rcvd config from my local.cf file.
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@mydomain.com mydomain.local
trusted_networks 172.16.1/24
whitelist_from_rcvd on internal email. You don't have
an external relay to match against. It doesn't matter if your
machine ends in .local or not.
Note the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX. You probably need to run sa-update sometime this
year.
The ALL_TRUSTED should be enough by itself. If you need to have
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 07:57 -0700, keithcommins wrote:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 ( 2008-06-10 ) on
mail.mydomain.com
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=8.0
tests=ALL_TRUSTED,FH_DATE_PAST_20XX,
^
Run sa-update.
-whitelisting-domain-users-with-whitelist_from_rcvd-tp29287372p29288192.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
What is the best way to completely whitelist all internal emails so that
there is no danger of any internal emails being blacklisted
The best way is to not feed internal emails to SpamAssassin.
).
We have this in the spamassassin systemwide local.cf
whitelist_from x...@lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from x...@iasf-milano.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@lambrate.inaf.it lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@iasf
Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
whitelist_from x...@lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from x...@iasf-milano.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@lambrate.inaf.it lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@iasf-milano.inaf.it lambrate.inaf.it
per
month).
We have this in the spamassassin systemwide local.cf
whitelist_from x...@lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from x...@iasf-milano.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@lambrate.inaf.it lambrate.inaf.it
whitelist_from_rcvd
Ignore the text immediately after the from, in this case
SUB.MYDOMAIN.MAIL. That is _not_ rDNS data, that is whatever the
client sent in its SMTP HELO, and can be _anything_. If you see the
correct hostname there it just means that computer is sending its
correct hostname when it says HELO.
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
Exactly how are you checking the rDNS of that IP address? Can you
demonstrate?
Are you performing your rDNS tests on the MTA computer? It looks to
me like the DNS setup on it is misconfigured somehow and it can't
perform rDNS queries successfully.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility
- it's all right.
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
host.ip.addr.here
Why
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility -
it's all right.
Igor, can you show us how you used host and what it output?
Here's both headers, tagged Received:
Hi,
When I add the string like:
whitelist_from s...@domain.mail
it works OK.
But:
whitelist_from_rcvd s...@domain.mail prefix.domain.mail
doesn't work.
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility - it's
all right.
And the appropriate mail header seems to be correct
On fre 02 okt 2009 10:34:55 CEST, Igor Bogomazov wrote
And the appropriate mail header seems to be correct:
Received: from prefix.domain.mail (unknown [12.12.12.12])
What's the matter?
unknown reverse dns is postfix answer for not found reverse dns, so
host was in the test you did wrong
From: Igor Bogomazov b...@hl.ru
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 12:34:55 +0400
When I add the string like:
whitelist_from s...@domain.mail
it works OK.
But:
whitelist_from_rcvd s...@domain.mail prefix.domain.mail
doesn't work.
I've checked rDNS
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
whitelist_from_rcvd s...@domain.mail prefix.domain.mail
doesn't work.
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility - it's
all right.
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
host.ip.addr.here
John Hardin wrote:
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
host.ip.addr.here
Actually, unless your DNS configuration is doing something bizarre, they
should give back the same basic info - dig is just a lot more verbose:
[kdeu...@turboprop ~]$ host 209.91.179.62
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
whitelist_from_rcvd s...@domain.mail prefix.domain.mail
doesn't work.
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility - it's
all right.
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Kris Deugau wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
host.ip.addr.here
Actually, unless your DNS configuration is doing something bizarre, they
should give back the same basic info - dig is just a lot more verbose:
-kgd,
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
I've checked rDNS of the prefix.domain.mail with 'host' utility - it's
all right.
You don't check rDNS using host, you check it using dig -x
host.ip.addr.here
Why not, they come up with
It appears as though I don't understand how this is supposed to work. I
have a file in /etc/mail/spamassassin called my-whitelist.cf. In it I
have entries such as:
whitelist_from_rcvd serv...@freenet.de freenet.de
whitelist_from_rcvd harley-requ...@the-hed.net the-hed.net
In my local.cf I have
Chris wrote:
It appears as though I don't understand how this is supposed to work. I
have a file in /etc/mail/spamassassin called my-whitelist.cf. In it I
have entries such as:
snip
whitelist_from_rcvd harley-requ...@the-hed.net the-hed.net
snip
however, a message from the 2nd
I have an entry in a what I call my-whitelist.cf
in /etc/mail/spamassassin:
whitelist_from_rcvd blackwell_...@yahoo.com yahoo.com
If I run a message from this person with spamassassin -D -t msg
shouldn't I get a hit on USER_IN_WHITELIST or not?
Also, I'm still not sure I have my
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:10:01 -0500
Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
I have an entry in a what I call my-whitelist.cf
in /etc/mail/spamassassin:
whitelist_from_rcvd blackwell_...@yahoo.com yahoo.com
If I run a message from this person with spamassassin -D -t msg
shouldn't I get a hit
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 00:56 +0100, RW wrote:
The trouble with whitelist_from_rcvd is that it relies on the MX server
recording reverse DNS - most do, some don't.
Also, I'm still not sure I have my trusted_networks setting correct. I
have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 00:56 +0100, RW wrote:
Also, I'm still not sure I have my trusted_networks setting correct. I
have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks 192.168/16 71.48.160.0/20 71.54.96/19
Here is a line of Received: from headers from a test mail to myself:
Received:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:46 +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk [2009-07-30 16:35]:
On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
reverse lookup is forged. But still
Hi,
I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@alita.karotte.org localhost
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk [2009-07-30 16:35]:
On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
whitelist_from_rcvd *...@alita.karotte.org localhost
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
SpamAssassin is running?
Tell your glue layer that messages originating on that server should not
be passed to SA at all.
If you describe how SA is glued to your MTA we might be
* John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org [2009-07-30 17:24]:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
SpamAssassin is running?
Tell your glue layer that messages originating on that server should not
be passed to SA at all.
On Thu, July 30, 2009 16:46, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk [2009-07-30 16:35]:
On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
a bug apparently.
JFYI, I created a bugreport for this:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org [2009-07-30 17:24]:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
SpamAssassin is running?
Tell your glue layer that messages originating on
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org [2009-07-30 17:37]:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
How do you get
From: Sebastian Wiesinger spamassassin.us...@ml.karotte.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:48:09 +0200
* John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org [2009-07-30 17:39]:
Sendmail - Procmail - SA (spamc)
Cool, that should be simple.
Can you send:
(1) the Received: headers from
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Sebastian Wiesinger spamassassin.us...@ml.karotte.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:48:09 +0200
* John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org [2009-07-30 17:39]:
Sendmail - Procmail - SA (spamc)
Cool, that should be simple.
Can you send:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 09:39 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jeff Mincy wrote:
Processing locally generated email that contain spam URLs through
SpamAssassin is not a particularly good idea. If you have Bayes
enabled then you are training your Bayes that spam URLs and
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:41, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org [2009-07-30 17:37]:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:46 +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk [2009-07-30 16:35]:
On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
reverse lookup is forged. But still
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:41, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org [2009-07-30 17:37]:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I
[sebast...@alita:~]$ host 220.231.127.15
15.127.231.220.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer localhost.
this is your dns error, it does not make sense
You are correct, but the problem is not in Sebastian's DNS - it is in
the rDNS of the IP that contacted his MTA.
Not quite the same thing,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
Received: from alside.com (localhost [220.231.127.15] (may be forged))
by alita.karotte.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with SMTP id n6UBn1BJ021997
for webmas...@alita.karotte.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:49:05 +0200
That nonsense should
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 05:55 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
You need a second parameter to whitelist_from_rcvd. The second parameter
is the hostname (or fragment thereof) that should be found in the
Received: headers generated by the last internal host (ie: your mx).
This part does assume that you
I've been reading threads saying that whitelist_from is spoofable and
that I should be using whitelist_from_rcvd instead, so I checked the
three whitelist entries I use to whitelist_from_rcvd. Here is an
example:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, I'm getting them rejected
Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've been reading threads saying that whitelist_from is spoofable and
that I should be using whitelist_from_rcvd instead, so I checked the
three whitelist entries I use to whitelist_from_rcvd. Here is an
example:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, I'm
Martin Gregorie wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:42:37 +:
at the end of the INSTALL document it says to
look at the USAGE document, but if this still exists it is not mentioned
on the 'Doc' page.
/usr/share/doc/spamassassin-3.2.5/USAGE
I admit I skipped over the Mail::Spamassassin::Conf
Martin Gregorie wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:27:05 +:
I can't find anything in the wiki or on the SA website
that shows the valid arguments for whitelist_from_rcvd, so what am I
doing wrong?
Please?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 11:55 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:27:05 +:
I can't find anything in the wiki or on the SA website
that shows the valid arguments for whitelist_from_rcvd, so what am I
doing wrong?
Please?
http
Occasionally I'd like to do something like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] /^smtp[0-9]+\.orange\.fr$/
The situation is that domain.fr is relaying mail through their provider,
which has a number of smtp servers named smtpNN.orange.fr. If I were
to stick to the current
Per Jessen wrote:
Occasionally I'd like to do something like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] /^smtp[0-9]+\.orange\.fr$/
The situation is that domain.fr is relaying mail through their provider,
which has a number of smtp servers named smtpNN.orange.fr. If I were
to stick
Per Jessen wrote:
Occasionally I'd like to do something like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] /^smtp[0-9]+\.orange\.fr$/
One problem.. That involves a regex, but whitelist_from is a regular
user config option.
In general, regular expressions are intentionally not used
of asking for a lacking addition to a poor whitelisting method
(in this case), we should enhance whitelist_from_rcvd to process received
paths:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.2.3.4 2.3.4.5
Perhaps it could even work with hostnames as long as they stay inside
trusted_networks.
And perhaps
of asking for a lacking addition to a poor whitelisting method
(in this case), we should enhance whitelist_from_rcvd to process received
paths:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.2.3.4 2.3.4.5
why? I wouldn't put 30 IPs there...
if user trusts his MTA, then rdns can be trusted
Henrik K wrote:
Then instead of asking for a lacking addition to a poor whitelisting
method (in this case), we should enhance whitelist_from_rcvd to
process received paths:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.2.3.4 2.3.4.5
Should this be read to mean whitelist from foobar if it came
1 - 100 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
