You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> on 2014/10/17 00:00:31 UTC
SA list mail rejected by URIBL?
was a reply to "getting tons of SPAM"
well, the Received and X-Virus-Scanned quote are hitting but looks like
reject just because of that is a bit questionable on a list about spam
<us...@spamassassin.apache.org>: host mx1.eu.apache.org[192.87.106.230]
said: 552 spam score (11.2) exceeded threshold
(RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL)
Re: SA list mail rejected by URIBL?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/16/2014 6:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> was a reply to "getting tons of SPAM"
>
> well, the Received and X-Virus-Scanned quote are hitting but looks
> like reject just because of that is a bit questionable on a list about
> spam
>
> <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>: host
> mx1.eu.apache.org[192.87.106.230] said: 552 spam score (11.2) exceeded
> threshold
> (RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL)
If you have questionable URIs in play to discuss, modify them with
something like thelounge-munge.net. The -munge concept is used to
defang dangerous urls so people don't click them and to bypass RBLs.
regards,
KAM
Re: SA list mail rejected by URIBL?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/17/2014 4:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i only find it strange that the SA list has configured such a high
> score for the URIBLs that even respoond and quote leads to get rejected
We don't run the list. It's run under the ASF infrastructure.
Regards,
KAM
Re: SA list mail rejected by URIBL?
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 17.10.2014 um 08:42 schrieb Matthias Leisi:
> 192.87.106.230 should hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, not _LOW. Either you
> redefined these rules, or something is broken.
nope
that's just the rejecting machine
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW is our server
i only find it strange that the SA list has configured such a high score
for the URIBLs that even respoond and quote leads to get rejected
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net
> <ma...@thelounge.net>> wrote:
>
> was a reply to "getting tons of SPAM"
>
> well, the Received and X-Virus-Scanned quote are hitting but looks
> like reject just because of that is a bit questionable on a list
> about spam
>
> <users@spamassassin.apache.org
> <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>__>: host mx1.eu.apache.org
> <http://mx1.eu.apache.org>[192.87.106.__230] said: 552 spam score
> (11.2) exceeded threshold
> (RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,__URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,__URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL)
Re: SA list mail rejected by URIBL?
Posted by Matthias Leisi <ma...@leisi.net>.
192.87.106.230 should hit RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, not _LOW. Either you redefined
these rules, or something is broken.
-- Matthias (affiliated with the dnswl.org project)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>
wrote:
> was a reply to "getting tons of SPAM"
>
> well, the Received and X-Virus-Scanned quote are hitting but looks like
> reject just because of that is a bit questionable on a list about spam
>
> <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>: host mx1.eu.apache.org[192.87.106.230]
> said: 552 spam score (11.2) exceeded threshold (RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,
> URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL)
>
>
>
>
--
Matthias Leisi
Katzenrütistrasse 68, 8153 Rümlang
043 211 03 55 / 079 377 04 43