Home / Browse / Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy Server / Mail / Archive

Donate

Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy Server

Email Archive: assp-test (read-only)

2007:	_Jan	_Feb	_Mar	_Apr	_May	_Jun	_Jul	_Aug (400)	_Sep (619)	_Oct (540)	_Nov (426)	_Dec (204)
2008:	_Jan (662)	_Feb (332)	_Mar (335)	_Apr (284)	_May (193)	_Jun (201)	_Jul (264)	_Aug (283)	_Sep (167)	_Oct (193)	_Nov (155)	_Dec (298)
2009:	_Jan (336)	_Feb (402)	_Mar (788)	_Apr (673)	_May (227)	_Jun (182)	_Jul (337)	_Aug (219)	_Sep (490)	_Oct (527)	_Nov (385)	_Dec (391)
2010:	_Jan (257)	_Feb (188)	_Mar (253)	_Apr (190)	_May (217)	_Jun (171)	_Jul (83)	_Aug (158)	_Sep (215)	_Oct (221)	_Nov (102)	_Dec (159)
2011:	_Jan (245)	_Feb (119)	_Mar (167)	_Apr (112)	_May (158)	_Jun (149)	_Jul (164)	_Aug (116)	_Sep (109)	_Oct (310)	_Nov (288)	_Dec (265)
2012:	_Jan (212)	_Feb (187)	_Mar (289)	_Apr (229)	_May (117)	_Jun (70)	_Jul (108)	_Aug (212)	_Sep (164)	_Oct (90)	_Nov (58)	_Dec (69)
2013:	_Jan (85)	_Feb (56)	_Mar (115)	_Apr (55)	_May (29)	_Jun	_Jul	_Aug	_Sep	_Oct	_Nov	_Dec


S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
				(3)		(2)
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
(7)		(1)		(1)
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
		(2)	(5)	(2)	(5)
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
(3)	(4)	(4)				(1)
25	26	27	28	29	30
		(2)	(9)	(7)

Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)

From: Hill, Brett <brett.hill@nl...> - 2012-11-29 12:41

Persblackdb also has this problem.

Thanks,
Brett

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hill, Brett [mailto:brett.hill@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:36 PM
> To: assp-test@...
> Subject: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out which ldaplist file is being used.
There are two:
> ldaplist and ldaplist.db
> 
> The value for "ldaplistdb" is "ldaplist", but it looks like the file
"ldaplist.db" is
> the one being written to.
> 
> The same applies to "ldapnotfounddb".
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Brett

Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)

From: Hill, Brett <brett.hill@nl...> - 2012-11-29 12:43

In addition, missing the show persblack addresses button.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hill, Brett [mailto:brett.hill@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:42 AM
> To: ASSP development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)
> 
> Persblackdb also has this problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brett

Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)

From: Fritz Borgstedt <fb@iw...> - 2012-11-29 14:36

ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...> schrei
bt:
>In addition, missing the show persblack addresses button.



They are there.

Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)

From: Hill, Brett <brett.hill@nl...> - 2012-11-29 14:58

My bad, I was in the "file paths" section and was looking for it there.
Forgot to look under "Email Interface".  It would be nice to have the
button there as well (like the griplist button).

Thanks,
Brett

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz Borgstedt [mailto:fb@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:35 AM
> To: ASSP development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)
> 
> ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...> schrei
> bt:
> >In addition, missing the show persblack addresses button.
> 
> 
> 
> They are there.
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
> VERIFY Test and improve your parallel project with help from experts
and
> peers. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
> _______________________________________________
> Assp-test mailing list
> Assp-test@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test

[Assp-test] Antwort: Previous problem rearing its head again - DoMSGIDsig not honoured.

From: Thomas Eckardt <Thomas.Eckardt@th...> - 2012-11-29 09:23

Hi Colin,

I hope I can fix this. As tempoary workaround increase 'fbmtvValencePB' to 
a value that is higher than 'PenaltyMessageLimit'.

Thomas




Von:    Colin <assp@...>
An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>, 
Datum:  28.11.2012 16:52
Betreff:        [Assp-test] Previous problem rearing its head again - 
DoMSGIDsig      not honoured.



Hi there,

A couple of months back I did a few messages about this. The problem 
went away with an update but all of a sudden it is back :/

DoMSGIDsig is set to block yet some backscatter messages are getting 
through because they are being scored instead of rejected and aren't 
going over the threshold. Again the LHS part of the email does not exist 
so these then become bounce messages that sit in my mail queues until 
they expire. There are only two examples from this week (included below) 
which leads me to believe that this is only affecting some messages 
rather than all as I was previously seeing hundreds per day.

All the best,
Colin Waring.

2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, 
ending with "." on a line by itself
2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring] SPF: none 
ip=109.202.17.215 helo=nsk.arconada.ru
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for 
Notification'
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring] 
(BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 6 for 
BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... info: found bounced sender: <> 
and recipient: <adelija.savasina@...> without valid 
MSGID-signature
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@...  MSGID-sig check 
failed for bounce sender
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 40 
(fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total 
score for this message is now 46
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 
[MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 109.202.17.215 to: 
adelija.savasina@... [spam found] and possibly passing 
because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MessageOK] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... message ok 
[Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK 
id=1TcqIZ-0007Wv-BL
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 221 
mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [SSL-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... finished message - received DATA 
size: 3.53 kByte - sent


2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, 
ending with "." on a line by itself
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring] SPF: none 
ip=212.176.125.145 helo=mail.genbank.ru
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for 
Notification'
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring] 
(BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 6 for 
BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... info: found bounced sender: <> 
and recipient: <grazhina.zhilova@...> without valid 
MSGID-signature
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@...  MSGID-sig check 
failed for bounce sender
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 40 
(fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total 
score for this message is now 46
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 
[MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 212.176.125.145 to: 
grazhina.zhilova@... [spam found] and possibly passing 
because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MessageOK] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... message ok 
[Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK 
id=1TdEze-0004ea-8c
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 221 
mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [SSL-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... finished message - received DATA 
size: 7.09 kByte - sent DATA size: 7.09 kByte


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: 
INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test




DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally 
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the 

individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no 
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************

Re: [Assp-test] Antwort: Previous problem rearing its head again - DoMSGIDsig not honoured.

From: Colin <assp@la...> - 2012-11-29 10:12

Thanks Thomas,

I've made the change - let me know if there's anything I can do to help!

All the best,
Colin Waring.

On 29/11/2012 09:22, Thomas Eckardt wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> I hope I can fix this. As tempoary workaround increase 'fbmtvValencePB' to
> a value that is higher than 'PenaltyMessageLimit'.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> Von:    Colin <assp@...>
> An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>,
> Datum:  28.11.2012 16:52
> Betreff:        [Assp-test] Previous problem rearing its head again -
> DoMSGIDsig      not honoured.
>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> A couple of months back I did a few messages about this. The problem
> went away with an update but all of a sudden it is back :/
>
> DoMSGIDsig is set to block yet some backscatter messages are getting
> through because they are being scored instead of rejected and aren't
> going over the threshold. Again the LHS part of the email does not exist
> so these then become bounce messages that sit in my mail queues until
> they expire. There are only two examples from this week (included below)
> which leads me to believe that this is only affecting some messages
> rather than all as I was previously seeing hundreds per day.
>
> All the best,
> Colin Waring.
>
> 2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
> 2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message,
> ending with "." on a line by itself
> 2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring] SPF: none
> ip=109.202.17.215 helo=nsk.arconada.ru
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for
> Notification'
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe]
> 109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring]
> (BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 6 for
> BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob:
> 0.00000 => ham
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob:
> 0.00000 => ham
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... info: found bounced sender: <>
> and recipient: <adelija.savasina@...> without valid
> MSGID-signature
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig]
> 109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@...  MSGID-sig check
> failed for bounce sender
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 40
> (fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total
> score for this message is now 46
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out]
> [MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 109.202.17.215 to:
> adelija.savasina@... [spam found] and possibly passing
> because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MessageOK]
> 109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... message ok
> [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
> id=1TcqIZ-0007Wv-BL
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 221
> mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
> 2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [SSL-out] 109.202.17.215
> to: adelija.savasina@... finished message - received DATA
> size: 3.53 kByte - sent
>
>
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message,
> ending with "." on a line by itself
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring] SPF: none
> ip=212.176.125.145 helo=mail.genbank.ru
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for
> Notification'
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe]
> 212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring]
> (BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
> 2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 6 for
> BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob:
> 0.00000 => ham
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob:
> 0.00000 => ham
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... info: found bounced sender: <>
> and recipient: <grazhina.zhilova@...> without valid
> MSGID-signature
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig]
> 212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@...  MSGID-sig check
> failed for bounce sender
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 40
> (fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total
> score for this message is now 46
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out]
> [MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 212.176.125.145 to:
> grazhina.zhilova@... [spam found] and possibly passing
> because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MessageOK]
> 212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... message ok
> [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
> id=1TdEze-0004ea-8c
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 221
> mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
> 2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [SSL-out] 212.176.125.145
> to: grazhina.zhilova@... finished message - received DATA
> size: 7.09 kByte - sent DATA size: 7.09 kByte
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
> INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
> Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
> http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
> _______________________________________________
> Assp-test mailing list
> Assp-test@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
>
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER:
> *******************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally
> privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the
>
> individual to whom it is addressed.
> This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no
> known virus in this email!
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
> VERIFY Test and improve your parallel project with help from experts
> and peers. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Assp-test mailing list
> Assp-test@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test

[Assp-test] Recurring Problem 2 - ASSP crash on similar connections

From: Colin <assp@la...> - 2012-11-28 15:59

Hi again,

There were some changes not too long back that addressed this. 
Unfortunately I am still seeing ASSP crashes every now and then where 
there are two similar connections hitting at the same time.

The first example is a mailing list hitting two different customers on 
different domains at the same time.

The second example is a mailing list hitting two different email 
addresses on the same domain at the same time.

The third example is on of our off site monitoring platforms. It sent us 
5 alerts simultaneously and hit 5 different workers. ASSP didn't even 
get past the MAIL FROM before it died.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the bug has not been completely 
squished!

All the best,
Colin Waring.

2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Main_Thread] Info: Main_Thread got connection request
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Worker_2 wakes up
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Info: Worker_2 got connection from MainThread
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Connected: 204.232.163.44:36472 > 
195.88.101.109:25 > 127.0.0.1:125
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail2.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:30:22 +0000
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Main_Thread] Info: Main_Thread freed by idle 
Worker_2 in 0.060 seconds
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_1] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 250 HELP
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 250 HELP
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_1] 204.232.163.44 info: injected STARTTLS 
request to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 info: injected STARTTLS 
request to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-20 08:30:22 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
[SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-20 08:30:22 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
[SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with 
"." on a line by itself
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with 
"." on a line by itself
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... Received-RWL:  from 
(list.dnswl.org->127.0.15.0,trust=0 (category=Email Marketing 
Providers);) - high trust is 0 - client-ip=204.232.163.44
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... Received-RWL:  from 
(list.dnswl.org->127.0.15.0,trust=0 (category=Email Marketing 
Providers);) - high trust is 0 - client-ip=204.232.163.44


2012-11-26 07:47:52 [Worker_3] Disconnected: 81.168.74.225 - processing 
time 1 seconds
2012-11-26 07:47:52 [Worker_3] Worker_3 will sleep now
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with "." on 
a line by itself
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with "." on 
a line by itself
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... Message-Score: added -4 for 209.85.219 in griplist 
(0.02), total score for this message is now -4
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... Message-Score: added -4 for 209.85.219 in griplist 
(0.02), total score for this message is now -4
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... Message-Score: added -10 (spfpValencePB) for SPF 
pass, total score for this message is now -14
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... Message-Score: added -10 (spfpValencePB) for SPF 
pass, total score for this message is now -14
2012-11-26 07:47:53 [Worker_2] Info: weighted regex (bombHeaderRe) 
result found for DKIM-Signature - with DKIM-Signature - weight is 0.1
2012-11-26 07:47:53 [Worker_1] Info: weighted regex (bombHeaderRe) 
result found for DKIM-Signature - with DKIM-Signature - weight is 0.1
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... Regex:BombHeaderRe 'PB 2: for DKIM-Signature'
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... Regex:BombHeaderRe 'PB 2: for DKIM-Signature'
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
[BombHeaderRe] 209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... [scoring] (BombHeaderRe 'DKIM-Signature')
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email1@... Message-Score: added 2 for BombHeaderRe 
'DKIM-Signature', total score for this message is now -12
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
[BombHeaderRe] 209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... [scoring] (BombHeaderRe 'DKIM-Signature')
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 
to: email2@... Message-Score: added 2 for BombHeaderRe 
'DKIM-Signature', total score for this message is now -12


2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_1] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:55:25 +0000
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_3] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:55:25 +0000
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_2] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_3] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-00074 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-09157 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-09511 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-06104 [Worker_5] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-12346 [Worker_4] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK

[Assp-test] Antwort: Recurring Problem 2 - ASSP crash on similar connections

From: Thomas Eckardt <Thomas.Eckardt@th...> - 2012-11-29 09:50

This issue is under investigation. It is caused by the DBD::mysql driver 
(-> MySQL-server ??) on some systems (OS - linux).
ASSP crashes if at least two different workers accessing the same DB table 
at exacly the same time.
Normaly this should be no problem, because the MySQL engine locking 
mechanism is designed to manage such cases.

I'm just testing a workaraound for this problem.

Thomas



Von:    Colin <assp@...>
An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>, 
Datum:  28.11.2012 17:00
Betreff:        [Assp-test] Recurring Problem 2 - ASSP crash on similar 
connections



Hi again,

There were some changes not too long back that addressed this. 
Unfortunately I am still seeing ASSP crashes every now and then where 
there are two similar connections hitting at the same time.

The first example is a mailing list hitting two different customers on 
different domains at the same time.

The second example is a mailing list hitting two different email 
addresses on the same domain at the same time.

The third example is on of our off site monitoring platforms. It sent us 
5 alerts simultaneously and hit 5 different workers. ASSP didn't even 
get past the MAIL FROM before it died.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the bug has not been completely 
squished!

All the best,
Colin Waring.

2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Main_Thread] Info: Main_Thread got connection request
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Worker_2 wakes up
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Info: Worker_2 got connection from 
MainThread
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] Connected: 204.232.163.44:36472 > 
195.88.101.109:25 > 127.0.0.1:125
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail2.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:30:22 +0000
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Main_Thread] Info: Main_Thread freed by idle 
Worker_2 in 0.060 seconds
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_1] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 250 HELP
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 [SMTP Reply] 250 HELP
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_1] 204.232.163.44 info: injected STARTTLS 
request to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-20 08:30:22 [Worker_2] 204.232.163.44 info: injected STARTTLS 
request to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-20 08:30:22 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
[SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-20 08:30:22 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
[SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with 
"." on a line by itself
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with 
"." on a line by itself
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-13588 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer1=domain1.tld@...> 
to: customer1@... Received-RWL:  from 
(list.dnswl.org->127.0.15.0,trust=0 (category=Email Marketing 
Providers);) - high trust is 0 - client-ip=204.232.163.44
2012-11-20 08:30:23 m1-00222-09405 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 204.232.163.44 
<bounce-mc.us5_9552969.12581-customer2=domain2.tld@...> 
to: customer2@... Received-RWL:  from 
(list.dnswl.org->127.0.15.0,trust=0 (category=Email Marketing 
Providers);) - high trust is 0 - client-ip=204.232.163.44


2012-11-26 07:47:52 [Worker_3] Disconnected: 81.168.74.225 - processing 
time 1 seconds
2012-11-26 07:47:52 [Worker_3] Worker_3 will sleep now
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with "." on 
a line by itself
2012-11-26 07:47:52 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, ending with "." on 
a line by itself
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... DKIM-Signature found
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... Message-Score: added -4 for 209.85.219 in griplist 
(0.02), total score for this message is now -4
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... Message-Score: added -4 for 209.85.219 in griplist 
(0.02), total score for this message is now -4
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... Message-Score: added -10 (spfpValencePB) for SPF 
pass, total score for this message is now -14
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... Message-Score: added -10 (spfpValencePB) for SPF 
pass, total score for this message is now -14
2012-11-26 07:47:53 [Worker_2] Info: weighted regex (bombHeaderRe) 
result found for DKIM-Signature - with DKIM-Signature - weight is 0.1
2012-11-26 07:47:53 [Worker_1] Info: weighted regex (bombHeaderRe) 
result found for DKIM-Signature - with DKIM-Signature - weight is 0.1
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... Regex:BombHeaderRe 'PB 2: for DKIM-Signature'
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... Regex:BombHeaderRe 'PB 2: for DKIM-Signature'
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
[BombHeaderRe] 209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... [scoring] (BombHeaderRe 'DKIM-Signature')
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-10927 [Worker_2] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkijaehYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email1@... Message-Score: added 2 for BombHeaderRe 
'DKIM-Signature', total score for this message is now -12
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
[BombHeaderRe] 209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... [scoring] (BombHeaderRe 'DKIM-Signature')
2012-11-26 07:47:53 m1-16071-09787 [Worker_1] [TLS-in] [TLS-out] 
209.85.219.72 
<3pR6zUBEKBDojknalhu+baaZlnktuckkcha.YkiiWngYknWhldkjao.Yk.qg@...> 

to: email2@... Message-Score: added 2 for BombHeaderRe 
'DKIM-Signature', total score for this message is now -12


2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_1] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:55:25 +0000
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_3] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 220 
mail.smtphost.co.uk ESMTP Exim 4.76 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:55:25 +0000
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_2] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 info: sending EHLO instead of 
HELO to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_3] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_5] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_4] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:25 [Worker_6] 1.1.1.1 info: injected STARTTLS request 
to 127.0.0.1
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-00074 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-09157 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-09511 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-06104 [Worker_5] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
2012-11-27 22:55:26 m1-56926-12346 [Worker_4] [TLS-out] 1.1.1.1 
<sender@...> [SMTP Reply] 250 OK

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: 
INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test




DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally 
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the 

individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no 
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************

[Assp-test] LDAPLIST 1.9.9(12333.1)

From: Hill, Brett <brett.hill@nl...> - 2012-11-28 17:35

I'm just trying to figure out which ldaplist file is being used.  There
are two: ldaplist and ldaplist.db

 

The value for "ldaplistdb" is "ldaplist", but it looks like the file
"ldaplist.db" is the one being written to.

 

The same applies to "ldapnotfounddb".

 

Kind Regards,

Brett

[Assp-test] No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313

From: Scott MacLean <assp@ho...> - 2012-11-28 13:58

This has been going on for months, and I've never been able to figure 
out a cause.

ASSP will start sending these alerts, once every 1 to 30 minutes or so:

ERROR: !!!! no answering DNS-SERVER found !!!!

However - the DNS servers are working normally. Will this occur if 
ASSP receives no answer from ANY DNS server, or if just one times out?

[Assp-test] Antwort: No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313

From: Thomas Eckardt <Thomas.Eckardt@th...> - 2012-11-28 14:58

>ERROR: !!!! no answering DNS-SERVER found !!!!

This error is thrown if NO of the configured DNS servers was answering in 
the DNS timeout range (defaults to 5 s for each server  'DNStimeout') - or 
no of the servers could be connected.

This could be happen if you have not configured a local DNS server (using 
only external) and your internet connection is lost for some seconds, or 
your line has an overload, or you reached a query limit in a external DNS 
server.

ASSP checks all DNS servers once a minute.

Thomas




Von:    Scott MacLean <assp@...>
An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>, 
Datum:  28.11.2012 14:59
Betreff:        [Assp-test] No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313



This has been going on for months, and I've never been able to figure 
out a cause.

ASSP will start sending these alerts, once every 1 to 30 minutes or so:

ERROR: !!!! no answering DNS-SERVER found !!!!

However - the DNS servers are working normally. Will this occur if 
ASSP receives no answer from ANY DNS server, or if just one times out? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: 
INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test




DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally 
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the 

individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no 
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************

Re: [Assp-test] Antwort: No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313

From: Scott MacLean <assp@ho...> - 2012-11-28 16:47

I have UseLocalDNS enabled, and I have five system local DNS servers 
defined. One of the five is running on the same box as ASSP, so it 
should always be available. The second one is running on the same 
physical subnet, with a <1ms latency. The third and fourth are the 
ISP's provided servers, and the fifth is Google's 8.8.8.8 server 
(used as a last-ditch backup).

I'm pretty sure out of all of those five, especially the one running 
on the same server as ASSP, it would get an answer back from at least 
one within the DNS Query Timeout (currently set to 5 seconds).

Is it possible that Perl may be doing a garbage collect or some other 
operation that causes ASSP to pause for >5 seconds just when it's 
attempting a DNS lookup, and as a result it thinks the lookup timed out?

At 09:58 AM 11/28/2012, Thomas Eckardt wrote:

> >ERROR: !!!! no answering DNS-SERVER found !!!!
>
>This error is thrown if NO of the configured DNS servers was answering in
>the DNS timeout range (defaults to 5 s for each server  'DNStimeout') - or
>no of the servers could be connected.
>
>This could be happen if you have not configured a local DNS server (using
>only external) and your internet connection is lost for some seconds, or
>your line has an overload, or you reached a query limit in a external DNS
>server.
>
>ASSP checks all DNS servers once a minute.
>
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>Von:    Scott MacLean <assp@...>
>An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>,
>Datum:  28.11.2012 14:59
>Betreff:        [Assp-test] No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313
>
>
>
>This has been going on for months, and I've never been able to figure
>out a cause.
>
>ASSP will start sending these alerts, once every 1 to 30 minutes or so:
>
>ERROR: !!!! no answering DNS-SERVER found !!!!
>
>However - the DNS servers are working normally. Will this occur if
>ASSP receives no answer from ANY DNS server, or if just one times out?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
>INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
>Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
>http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>_______________________________________________
>Assp-test mailing list
>Assp-test@...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
>
>
>
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>*******************************************************
>This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally
>privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the
>
>individual to whom it is addressed.
>This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no
>known virus in this email!
>*******************************************************
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
>INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
>Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
>http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>_______________________________________________
>Assp-test mailing list
>Assp-test@...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test

Re: [Assp-test] Antwort: No answering DNS v2.0 build 12313

From: Grayhat <grayhat@gm...> - 2012-11-28 17:22

> I have UseLocalDNS enabled, and I have five system local DNS servers 
> defined. One of the five is running on the same box as ASSP, so it 
> should always be available.

Five seems quite a bit, given that you wrote you're using external
resolvers; now I'm curious; do your local resolvers (including the one
running on the same box as ASSP) run with full recursion enabled (aka
root hints and all that) or are they forwarding queries to whatever
external resolver ?

> The third and fourth are the ISP's provided servers, and the fifth
> is Google's 8.8.8.8 server (used as a last-ditch backup).

Never use ISP or "public" resolvers to deal with a spamfilter DNS needs
otherwise you'll face quite a number of issues

[Assp-test] Previous problem rearing its head again - DoMSGIDsig not honoured.

From: Colin <assp@la...> - 2012-11-28 15:51

Hi there,

A couple of months back I did a few messages about this. The problem 
went away with an update but all of a sudden it is back :/

DoMSGIDsig is set to block yet some backscatter messages are getting 
through because they are being scored instead of rejected and aren't 
going over the threshold. Again the LHS part of the email does not exist 
so these then become bounce messages that sit in my mail queues until 
they expire. There are only two examples from this week (included below) 
which leads me to believe that this is only affecting some messages 
rather than all as I was previously seeing hundreds per day.

All the best,
Colin Waring.

2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, 
ending with "." on a line by itself
2012-11-26 04:27:59 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring] SPF: none 
ip=109.202.17.215 helo=nsk.arconada.ru
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for 
Notification'
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... [scoring] 
(BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 6 for 
BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... info: found bounced sender: <> 
and recipient: <adelija.savasina@...> without valid 
MSGID-signature
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@...  MSGID-sig check 
failed for bounce sender
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... Message-Score: added 40 
(fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total 
score for this message is now 46
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 
[MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 109.202.17.215 to: 
adelija.savasina@... [spam found] and possibly passing 
because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] [MessageOK] 
109.202.17.215 to: adelija.savasina@... message ok 
[Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK 
id=1TcqIZ-0007Wv-BL
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [TLS-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... [SMTP Reply] 221 
mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
2012-11-26 04:28:00 m1-04078-13239 [Worker_1] [SSL-out] 109.202.17.215 
to: adelija.savasina@... finished message - received DATA 
size: 3.53 kByte - sent


2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message, 
ending with "." on a line by itself
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring] SPF: none 
ip=212.176.125.145 helo=mail.genbank.ru
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Regex:BombSubjectRe 'PB 6: for 
Notification'
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [BombSubjectRe] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... [scoring] 
(BombSubjectRe 'Notification')
2012-11-27 06:50:06 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 6 for 
BombSubjectRe 'Notification', total score for this message is now 6
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... HMM Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob: 
0.00000 => ham
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... info: found bounced sender: <> 
and recipient: <grazhina.zhilova@...> without valid 
MSGID-signature
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MSGID-sig] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@...  MSGID-sig check 
failed for bounce sender
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... Message-Score: added 40 
(fbmtvValencePB) for MSGID-sig check failed for bounce sender , total 
score for this message is now 46
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 
[MSGID-sig][lowlimit] 212.176.125.145 to: 
grazhina.zhilova@... [spam found] and possibly passing 
because messagescore(46) low [Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_DCC
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] [MessageOK] 
212.176.125.145 to: grazhina.zhilova@... message ok 
[Delivery Status Notification Failure]
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 250 OK 
id=1TdEze-0004ea-8c
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [TLS-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... [SMTP Reply] 221 
mail.smtphost.co.uk closing connection
2012-11-27 06:50:07 m1-99006-11513 [Worker_2] [SSL-out] 212.176.125.145 
to: grazhina.zhilova@... finished message - received DATA 
size: 7.09 kByte - sent DATA size: 7.09 kByte

[Assp-test] Antwort: Issues with SPF

From: Thomas Eckardt <Thomas.Eckardt@th...> - 2012-11-28 08:45

this is the SPF record for dnb.com

dnb.com text =

        "v=spf1 mx ip4:72.19.252.170 ip4:202.129.242.64/2 
ip4:204.14.232.64/28 i
p4:204.14.234.64/28 mx:uscwygtw01.dnb.com mx:uscwygtw02.dnb.com 
mx:uslitgtw01.dn
b.com mx:uslitgtw02.dnb.com include:alerts.wallst.com ~all"

look at the entry  ip4:202.129.242.64/2 - which makes the IP range 
192.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 valid for SPF
this range is too large - max is 8 Bit - and makes assp to set all SPF 
results for this domain to faile

possibly this is a typo and it should be  ip4:202.129.242.64/28

solution:

- contact the DNS master of the domain to change the record
- skip the SPF check for this domain
- use V2 and override the record

Thomas




Von:    Doug Lytle <support@...>
An:     ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...>, 
Datum:  27.11.2012 21:11
Betreff:        [Assp-test] Issues with SPF



I seem to be having a problem with one specific vendor. Their domain is 
dnb.com. 

Email coming in is flagging their SPF as a SPAMMER SPF (New one to me). 
Reviewing their SPF appears to be valid and passes the online SPF Query 
tool. Could someone comment on it? 

I've changed source and destination domain and the @ symbol to AT 

Logs below, I'm currently running ASSP version 2.2.2(12313): 


158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com at 
least one removed privat entry found in whitelist (sender AT 
DNB.com,receipient AT ourdomain.com) - mail is no longer whitelisted 

[Whitelisted] 158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT 
ourdomain.com info: found valid MSGID signature in [References:] - accept 
mail 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com SPF: 
found SPAMMER SPF record/mechanism 'mechanism 'mx' matched' for domain 
dnb.com - SPF result is set to 'fail' 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com 
Message-Score: added 10 (spfValencePB) for SPF fail, total score for this 
message is now 10 

[SPF] 158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com 
[spam found] (SPF fail) [RE Test Email] -> /assp/spam/13623--5033917.eml; 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com [SMTP 
Error] 554 5.7.1 failed SPF: dnb.com: 158.151.208.48 is authorized to use 
'sender AT dnb.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'mx' matched) 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com [SMTP 
Status] 451 4.7.1 Please try again later 



Thanks, 

Doug 



-- 

 

-- 
Ben Franklin quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: 
DESIGN Expert tips on starting your parallel project right.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test



DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally 
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the 

individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no 
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************

Re: [Assp-test] Antwort: Issues with SPF

From: Doug Lytle <support@dr...> - 2012-11-28 09:52

Thomas Eckardt wrote:
> 192.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 valid for SPF
> this range is too large - max is 8 Bit

Thanks Thomas!  I didn't notice that.  I'll get in contact with them.

Doug


-- 
Ben Franklin quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Assp-test] Issues with SPF

From: Doug Lytle <support@dr...> - 2012-11-27 20:10

I seem to be having a problem with one specific vendor. Their domain is dnb.com. 

Email coming in is flagging their SPF as a SPAMMER SPF (New one to me). Reviewing their SPF appears to be valid and passes the online SPF Query tool. Could someone comment on it? 

I've changed source and destination domain and the @ symbol to AT 

Logs below, I'm currently running ASSP version 2.2.2(12313): 


158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com at least one removed privat entry found in whitelist (sender AT DNB.com,receipient AT ourdomain.com) - mail is no longer whitelisted 

[Whitelisted] 158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com info: found valid MSGID signature in [References:] - accept mail 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com SPF: found SPAMMER SPF record/mechanism 'mechanism 'mx' matched' for domain dnb.com - SPF result is set to 'fail' 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com Message-Score: added 10 (spfValencePB) for SPF fail, total score for this message is now 10 

[SPF] 158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com [spam found] (SPF fail) [RE Test Email] -> /assp/spam/13623--5033917.eml; 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com [SMTP Error] 554 5.7.1 failed SPF: dnb.com: 158.151.208.48 is authorized to use 'sender AT dnb.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'mx' matched) 

158.151.208.48 <sender AT DNB.com> to: receipient AT ourdomain.com [SMTP Status] 451 4.7.1 Please try again later 



Thanks, 

Doug 



-- 

 

-- 
Ben Franklin quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Re: [Assp-test] sharing bayes database in ASSP 1.9.x.x?

From: Daniel Urstöger <daniel@go...> - 2012-11-19 10:47

> A simple way to run multiple ASSPs  is to have a "primary" ASSP which 
> handles the email-interface and runs rebuildspamdb.pl. Spamdb is then 
> copied  to the others.

well since the MXes have preference there is actually one "primary" ASSP installation already.
So What you say, is that I disabled rebuildspamdb.pl on the others and just copy Spamdb via SSH or other means to the others?

Kind regards,
Daniel

Re: [Assp-test] sharing bayes database in ASSP 1.9.x.x?

From: Fritz Borgstedt <fb@iw...> - 2012-11-19 11:15

ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...> schrei
bt:
>well since the MXes have preference there is actually one "primary" AS
>SP installation already.
>So What you say, is that I disabled rebuildspamdb.pl on the others and
>just copy Spamdb via SSH or other means to the others?




This is the way I run it.
Only to mention: ASSP V1 has nice option-- The secondaries may ping th
e primary and will only accept connections if the primary is down.
There is also a way to run the spamdb with mySQL. It is untested, beca
use V2 was developed and there was no need to expand SQL options.

The version is located here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/assp/upl
oad/ASSP%20Installation/MySQL/
Tie::RDBM must be installed

Spam Bayesian Database File (spamdb)
 
The output file from rebuildspamdb.pl.
Write "mysql" to use a MySQL table instead of a local file, in this ca
se you need to edit the MySQL parameters starting with myhost.

(tablename is spamdb)

[Assp-test] 1.9.8.4(0.0.04) and delaySpamLovers

From: Graziano <dreamservice@li...> - 2012-11-27 12:12

Hello Fritz

I have seen in 1.9.8.4 delaySpamLovers has been removed.
It was useful to enable/disable delaying for email or domain , a lot of people is asking it.
Currently I can't see a way to enable delaying per email/domain as before. Any chance to have it again ?

Graziano

[Assp-test] ASSP 1.9.8.4(12.323) SMTP Error

From: Hill, Brett <brett.hill@nl...> - 2012-11-20 13:48

I'm seeing several of these errors:  [SMTP Error] 501 Syntax: helo needs
hostname;

Is that to be expected?

Kind Regards,
Brett

Re: [Assp-test] ASSP 1.9.8.4(12.323) SMTP Error

From: Fritz Borgstedt <fb@iw...> - 2012-11-20 16:34

ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@...> schrei
bt:
>I'm seeing several of these errors:  [SMTP Error] 501 Syntax: helo nee
>ds
>hostname;
>
>Is that to be expected?


The sender is sending helo without a hostname. ASSP is rececting this 
(now) without connecting to MTA

[Assp-test] ASSP V1 versions

From: Fritz Borgstedt <fb@iw...> - 2012-11-24 12:44

ASSP V1 will use new versionnumbering.

The current beta release is 1.9.6 (12329) (even)
The current stable will be 1.9.5 (12329) (odd)

New:
- Enable WatchDog (EnableWatchDog)
This requires an installed AnyEvent::Watchdog module in PERL. If enabl
ed, it will fork assp and continue to run in the child, while the pare
nt becomes a supervisor.
 
- Restart/Kill after this many Seconds (WatchDogHeartBeat)
 
 
- Kill & Restart (WatchDogRestart)
Enabling this will ask the WatchDog to restart ASSP, disabling this wi
ll only kill ASSP.

[Assp-test] email interface, cannot get reports

From: <slava@we...> - 2012-11-20 14:55

Hello, All,

I want to enable email interface and manage assp lists through it.

While testing I realized, that message is actually being handled by
assp, but report is not sent.
Wondering what may be wrong in my assp config, because a while ago it
was working and I was able to receive report to any assp address set in
Email Interface.

Using 2.2.2 (12265)

Appreciate any help.
Thanks.

[Assp-test] need some help on DKIM

From: Thomas Eckardt <Thomas.Eckardt@th...> - 2012-11-20 09:57

Hello all,

I need some help from some native english speeking of you.

In RFC4871 3.7.  (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4871.txt) "Computing the 
Message Hashes" there is a part:

 .... 
   When calculating the hash on messages that will be transmitted using
   base64 or quoted-printable encoding, signers MUST compute the hash
   after the encoding.  Likewise, the verifier MUST incorporate the
   values into the hash before decoding the base64 or quoted-printable
   text.  However, the hash MUST be computed before transport level
   encodings such as SMTP "dot-stuffing" (the modification of lines
   beginning with a "." to avoid confusion with the SMTP end-of-message
   marker, as specified in [RFC2821]).
...

The SMTP "dot-stuffing" is described in RFC2821 "4.5.2 Transparency".

The question is:

Do we have to remove the transport level encodings like SMTP 
"dot-stuffing" only in quoted-printable encoded mails or in all (base64 
encoded mails will never have a leading dot).

NOTE:
even Mail::DKIM::Signer says:
......
=head2 PRINT()

Feed part of the message to the signer.

  $dkim->PRINT("a line of the message\015\012");

Feeds content of the message being signed into the signer.
The API is designed this way so that the entire message does NOT need
to be read into memory at once.

Please note that although the PRINT() method expects you to use
SMTP-style line termination characters, you should NOT use the
SMTP-style dot-stuffing technique described in RFC 2821 section 4.5.2.
Nor should you use a <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> sequence to terminate the
message. 
......


The problem is - if I remove the leading dot from lines in text/plain - 
ASCII MIME parts, most of the online DKIM checks are failing. (?????)

Thomas



DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally 
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the 

individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no 
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************

Next Messages