Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:35:25PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> is it possible to match message headers in rfc822 atttachments?
>
> from what I know, "header" rules only apply to mail headers and
mimeheader
> only apply to mime headers.
>
> body and rawbo
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 05:11:47PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:59:36PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 26.04.22 16:11, Henrik K wrote:
> > > Maybe a bit safer version that doesn't log huge strings and run wild
> > >
> > > full FOO /^(?=.*?\nContent-Type:
> > >
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:59:36PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 26.04.22 16:11, Henrik K wrote:
> > Maybe a bit safer version that doesn't log huge strings and run wild
> >
> > full FOO /^(?=.*?\nContent-Type:
> > message\/rfc822.{0,1024}?\nReceived:(?:[^\n]{1,100}\n\s{1,100}){0,3}[^
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:35:25PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> is it possible to match message headers in rfc822 atttachments?
>
> from what I know, "header" rules only apply to mail headers and mimeheader
> only apply to mime headers.
>
> body and rawbody afaik only search in bodies of
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 04:04:13PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:35:25PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is it possible to match message headers in rfc822 atttachments?
> >
> > from what I know, "header" rules only apply to mail headers and mimeheader
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:35:25PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is it possible to match message headers in rfc822 atttachments?
>
> from what I know, "header" rules only apply to mail headers and mimeheader
> only apply to mime headers.
>
> body and rawbody afaik only search
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
And you keep replying with the non sequitur that not all ISPs support
the submission port.
someone, if not you, brought submission into it, thast where it got
nasty, forget who since i dont read this list often enuf, dont care who
started out an attack on me
> > Again, I've no idea what relevance that has to anything I've written.
> >
> > All I ever said in his thread was that I don't in general rate ISP mail
> > very highly, and that if an ISP blocks outgoing connections to port 25
> > you can still connect to a third-party server through either the
On Sat 22 Aug 2009 03:58:18 PM CEST, John Hardin wrote
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST), Res wrote:
for our customers, I dont care what other companies like that do,
they can accept mail on port 80 for all I care.
newer used webmail ?
Webma
Hi,
On Fri, 21.08.2009 at 13:43:26 -0600, Karl Pearson
wrote:
> Nothing free is worth a cent.
this only goes to show that money isn't that much of a universal metric
as it's touted to be. If you've lost all other metrices, then I'm sorry
for you.
"Can't buy me love" (Beatles)
Kind regards
Hi,
although I missed out on the bulk of the discussion, I have to say this
to Ted's email:
On Fri, 21.08.2009 at 10:46:55 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
> companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market and
> RW wrote:
> The idea that I'm attacking you is just your paranoid fantasy.
>
RW,
there is a song in those last 4 words...
just need lyrics and a major recording star and you will be more wealthy !
- rh
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST), Res wrote:
for our customers, I dont care what other companies like that do, they
can accept mail on port 80 for all I care.
newer used webmail ?
Webmail != inbound SMTP on port 80, Benny.
--
John Hardi
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST), Res wrote:
> for our customers, I dont care what other companies like that do, they
can
> accept mail on port 80 for all I care.
newer used webmail ?
--
Benny Pedersen
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:51:15 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
>
> > Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> > sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> > understand.
>
> I know exactly what your saying,
You clear
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
understand.
I know exactly what your saying, its you it seems who cant comprehend what
I'm saying
Are you not aware that t
Karl Pearson wrote:
On Fri, August 21, 2009 1:41 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Gary Smith wrote:
I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market
and
I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the s
On Fri, August 21, 2009 1:41 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Gary Smith wrote:
>>> I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
>>> companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market
>>> and
>>> I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
Gary Smith wrote:
I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market and
I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
engine market, either.
I don't agree with this "everyone's an ISP" menta
> I agree. We're and ISP and I don't want us to be associated with
> companies like Google. I don't want Google operating in my market and
> I'm sure as heck that Google doesn't want me operating in the search
> engine market, either.
>
> I don't agree with this "everyone's an ISP" mentality tha
RW wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:27:55 -0700
Gary Smith wrote:
Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
understand.
Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email
services without be
> Again, I've no idea what relevance that has to anything I've written.
>
> All I ever said in his thread was that I don't in general rate ISP mail
> very highly, and that if an ISP blocks outgoing connections to port 25
> you can still connect to a third-party server through either the
> submissi
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:27:55 -0700
Gary Smith wrote:
>
> > Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> > sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> > understand.
> >
> > Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email
> > servi
Please watch your language. This is a public mailing list, and
offensive language here is inappropriate.
--j.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:41, Res wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>> On 09.08.09 09:20, Res wrote:
>>>
>>> Correct, only relay for your own customers base
> Because as I said numerous times I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm not
> sure precisely which part of "I'm not talking about ISPs" you don't
> understand.
>
> Are you not aware that there are companies that provide email services
> without being ISPs: Google, Fastmail, Tuffmail etc.
>
Just beca
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about inappropriate
language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
I'd agree. Looking at his / her last 10 posts, each of them has at least
one swear in them. It's time for a ban, IMHO.
+1
Polite discussion is useful to everyone
+1 to that.
I'm sick of seeing people being flamed in here. Makes you not want to post, TBH.
Michael Hutchinson
-Original Message-
From: Evan Platt [mailto:e...@espphotography.com]
Sent: Friday, 21 August 2009 3:18 p.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: your mail
At 07:43 PM 8/20/2009, you wrote:
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about
inappropriate language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
I'd agree. Looking at his / her last 10 posts, each of them has at
least one swear in them. It's time for a ban, IMHO.
Res wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Bullshit.
Bullshit to what?
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about inappropriate
language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Kris Deugau wrote:
I'm having a bit of trouble being sure of what you're saying, but it sounds
like:
"We don't use SMTP AUTH."
Correct (unless your a hosting customer) we use dedicated customer
outbound boxes.
"We don't allow relay from outside our own netblocks."
Cor
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses, but not
from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already discussed
here - you are going the wrong way.
On
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 09.08.09 09:20, Res wrote:
Correct, only relay for your own customers based on your own IP ranges,
pretty much removes abuse, and smtp-auth is only enabled on hosting
servers, hosting customers don't use end-users smtp, nor can end users
use h
On 9-Aug-2009, at 03:36, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
We allow authenticated relaying from our users even if they do not
use our IP ranges and we see much less spam,
Exactly.
and it is much easier to block the authenticated user than finding
out who exactly is sending mail from dynamically
Res wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses,
but not
from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already
discussed
here - you are going the wrong way.
Not bad for me, we used to do this, it
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:58:21 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
>
> > It's not wrong because I'm not talking about the ISP servers, I'm
> > talking about making outgoing connections to third party servers
> > that do support 587 or the ssl port.
> >
> > If you actually took
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> Well, you have a very nice fsck-you attitude toward your own customers
>> which I find appalling. If I am at a coffee shop, or at a friends
>> house, and I can't sent mail out because my ISP only allows connections
>> from their own IP pool then yeah, I
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses, but not
>> from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already discussed
>> here - you are going the wrong way.
On 09.08.09 09:26, Res wrote:
> Not bad for me,
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>>> any ISP that relays for non customers, needs a kicking. (hosting excluded)
>>
>> do you mean "they will only allow their users relaying through their
On 09.08.09 09:20, Res wrote:
> Correct, only relay for your own customers based on your
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, LuKreme wrote:
Well, you have a very nice fsck-you attitude toward your own customers which
I find appalling. If I am at a coffee shop, or at a friends house, and I
can't sent mail out because my ISP only allows connections from their own IP
pool then yeah, I will walk away
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, RW wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:36:25 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
anything, just not block the port. ISP's block outgoing port
On 8-Aug-2009, at 17:30, Res wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Res wrote:
this assumes the ISP enables submission,
If an ISP doesn't enable submission then walk away and find a real
ISP that
What rubbish
cares about it's customers. Seriously, no port 5
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:36:25 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
>
> >> wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
> >
> > What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
> > anything, just not block the port. ISP's block outgoing port 25 to
>
> Wron
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
wrong again, this assumes the ISP enables submission,
What do you mean enables submission? They don't have to enable
anything, just not block the port. ISP's block outgoing port 25 to
Wrong, postfix by default does not use 587, and AFAIK Qmail doesnt either.
A
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Res wrote:
this assumes the ISP enables submission,
If an ISP doesn't enable submission then walk away and find a real ISP that
What rubbish
cares about it's customers. Seriously, no port 587 = no customer. If you
WOW the
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses, but not
from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already discussed
here - you are going the wrong way.
Not bad for me, we used to do this, it only got us in
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
any ISP that relays for non customers, needs a kicking. (hosting excluded)
do you mean "they will only allow their users relaying through their
Correct, only relay for your own customers based on your own IP ranges,
pretty much removes abus
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:22:40 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> >>> Yes, some ISPs deny connections to port 25, but that's why there's
> >>> 'submission' service on port 587 where authentication should be
> >>> required so any problem with sending spam directly to recipients
> >>> is avoided.
> >>
> >> Th
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Res wrote:
this assumes the ISP enables submission,
If an ISP doesn't enable submission then walk away and find a real ISP
that cares about it's customers. Seriously, no port 587 = no customer.
If you won't accept my email when I am connected via some other met
Yes, some ISPs deny connections to port 25, but that's why there's
'submission' service on port 587 where authentication should be
required so any problem with sending spam directly to recipients is
avoided.
>>>
>>> This is popular in *some* countries, dont assume its a universa
On 29.07.09 10:01, Res wrote:
> **head-note: I know youve not mentioned it to me, but i'll remove your
> address only once more, if you got a bitch about any further replies that
> will be CC'd to you, bitch to apache org for not having reply-to set.
> I'm sick of deleting them :)
complain to y
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
Why? Thats a dangerous recommendation, the number of times googles
mail servers get periodically blocked is funny.
I've been using gmail for about six months, and it's not happened to
me. OTOH gmail publishes SPF records, so it would be unwise to use ISP
servers
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:01:43 +1000 (EST)
Res wrote:
> > If he sends mail with gmail.com address, he should use gmail's SMTP
> > servers no matter which ISP he's connecting through.
>
> Why? Thats a dangerous recommendation, the number of times googles
> mail servers get periodically blocked is
**head-note: I know youve not mentioned it to me, but i'll remove your
address only once more, if you got a bitch about any further replies that
will be CC'd to you, bitch to apache org for not having reply-to set.
I'm sick of deleting them :)
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 26.07.09 22:09, r...@ausics.net wrote:
>>> If you are sending out from your dynamic home connection, you are going to
>>> have bigger problems, most of the big ISP's and many many many others
>>> block at MTA level for your type of connections, either get a static IP
>>> *and* a real PTR entr
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Michael W. Cocke wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a web interface to subscribe/unscribe from
this list. The email address
"users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org" complains that my IP
address is dynamic (which is why I
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Michael W. Cocke wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to be a web interface to subscribe/unscribe from
> > this list. The email address
> > "users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org" complains that my IP
> > address is dynamic (which is why I use dyndns.org, thank you very
> > mu
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, jcput...@mail.centreweb.co.za wrote:
Can spamassassin miss hits or rules if it is running on a slow machine?
No, but a message may skip SA if SA is overloaded due to running on a slow
machine. You need to take into account your email volume.
The most important thing to
On 12.02.08 13:41, The Doctor wrote:
> I indicated a whtielist_from in the universal configuration file
> and still there is {spam?} label.
>
> What should I be fixing?
maybe the label is inserted before your mail server/spam filter processes
the message
--
Matus UHLAR - fant
e it would actually come out and *tell* the sysadmin which host there is
no route to, but I expect that's an entirely different bit of code or even
another program entirely that's coming up with that error.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/So-you-wanted-to-firewall-your-mail-server...-tf3729493.html#a10440500
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ernie Dunbar wrote:
Ken A wrote:
May 11 12:00:09 pop spamd[47940]: dns: sendto() failed: No route to host
Host: 190.57.78.66.bl.spamcop.net. at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm
line
340, line 137.
It might be a good idea to change DnsResolver.pm to mak
d all is well again. Your post was most
enlightening. :)
It might be a good idea to change DnsResolver.pm to make this error message
clearer. I've googled this error message and other people are similarly
confused. "DNS lookup failed" would be a good one.
--
View this message in con
Ernie Dunbar wrote:
We just put our mailserver (with SpamAssassin of course) behind a firewall,
and now we get many many interesting error messages from spamd telling me
that there's no route to some host or other. I tweaked the DnsResolver.pm
module to show what host it was trying to route to, a
an failing silently due to the fact
that no IP address exists, thus the DNSBL.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/So-you-wanted-to-firewall-your-mail-server...-tf3729493.html#a10439456
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:34:06PM -0700, Ernie Dunbar wrote:
> Of course, hosts like 190.57.78.66.bl.spamcop.net are DNSBL blacklist
> members, and they resolve to nothing at all, which is why there is no route
> to host. But why is spamd suddenly spewing these errors now? It didn't do
> this befo
, and they resolve to nothing at all, which is why there is no route
to host. But why is spamd suddenly spewing these errors now? It didn't do
this before the firewall was in place.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/So-you-wanted-to-firewall-your-mail-server...-tf3729493.html
Peter Smith wrote:
> > > The messages are simply a random stream of words, with punctuation
> > > scattered in them. No HTML, no URLs being advertised, no excessive
> > > capitalisation, just meaningless text.
>
> I'm cautious about feeding these messages to sa-learn as spam, in
> case it has a ne
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > The messages are simply a random stream of words, with punctuation
> > scattered in them. No HTML, no URLs being advertised, no excessive
> > capitalisation, just meaningless text.
>
> Technically, then, it's not spam. Spam req
>> The messages are simply a random stream of words, with punctuation
>> scattered in them. No HTML, no URLs being advertised, no excessive
>> capitalisation, just meaningless text.
>
> Technically, then, it's not spam. Spam requires a commercial message
> of some sort. :)
Yeah, I think I said 'j
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Peter Smith wrote:
> The messages are simply a random stream of words, with punctuation
> scattered in them. No HTML, no URLs being advertised, no excessive
> capitalisation, just meaningless text.
Technically, then, it's not spam. Spam requires a commercial message
of some s
69 matches
Mail list logo
