Re: [bitfolk] The perils of opening tcp/22 to the Internet

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Rodrigo Campos
Date:  
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] The perils of opening tcp/22 to the Internet
sts.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:13:23 -0000



--1ou9v+QBCNysIXaH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:30:04AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 07:30:39PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > On its way out through my mail hub, the mail was run through the
> > Bitfolk spamassassin, which added its usual two headers: one with
> > the spam score in it, and one with a horribly mangled extract of
> > the original mail. This mail got rejected by vger.kernel.org on
> > the grounds that it doesn't accept UTF-8 in mail headers.
>
> I would like to avoid doing that, if BitFok's spamds are doing that.
>
> >    Is there any way I can get the X-frost.carfax.org.uk-Spam-Report:
> > header either suppressed completely, or (in preference) without the
> > content of the original message in it?

>
> ...but BitFolk's spamd's won't be adding an
> X-frost.carfax.org.uk-Spam-Report header. Is there anything for me
> to look into here?


No. David was right -- it's part of my set-up. I just hadn't found
the relevant bit of config at first, as it was in a slightly
unexpected place.

Hugo.

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
       --- It's against my programming to impersonate a deity! ---       


--1ou9v+QBCNysIXaH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOZISeIKyzvlFcI40RAuu4AJ49vKFhWIn8RrW9Et2E0IGHxwXCXgCgrOAI
oraYQ73RKWW1knFFdRByRhE=
=xBSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1ou9v+QBCNysIXaH--


From tcrosby@??? Mon Sep 05 20:26:09 2011
Received: from mail-iy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176])
    by bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72)
    (envelope-from <tcrosby@???>) id 1R0fk5-0002io-7O
    for users@???; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:26:09 +0000
Received: by iafi7 with SMTP id i7so9937752iaf.21
    for <users@???>; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
    h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
    :content-type; bh=/xADaLJOP+Y1IegGW+sTI0fJMTXt6eOtsXpUE1sLrxQ=;
    b=k2y5NwvjYPUv3tg0mCX0NIpaa/8xtsU+1n+EouqHtHfMoQdaRM6JhvAII85H1JxQjz
    jzi8hVCGHOhsapoTw51Q1vQyEx8mL36i1sKBBV8ZPsgj8bCAR+NrfxfS2tT8FRFP1Xi+
    +1SEAObgLWmeip20TF20siL+J5MiaFtgNjWZM=
Received: by 10.231.57.90 with SMTP id b26mr8372481ibh.6.1315253932098; Mon,
    05 Sep 2011 13:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version