Spamassassin change

I seemed to have more spam getting through. When I look at those messages which I think should have been caught, I observe that many/most/almost all of them contain in the X-Spam-Status the value: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5. Spamassassin is giving them a whopping -5 whole points if the dns source of the message appears in the High Reliability list of the site DNSWL.org, which according to what I read, is one of those sites that maintains reputation lists, and says of the High list:

“Recommended Usage: Skip spam filtering for medium and high ranked IPs. These are trusted to send spam rarely enough that they are not worth filtering.”

There is some discussion on the net, others too seem to think they are getting a lot of spam because of this, suggesting that a site on the dnswl high list can be induced to forward spam. I know little of all of this, but I have added a rule to /etc/spamassassin/local.cf:

score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -0.1 0 -0.1

This changes the value from -5 to -0.1. If I set it to 0 (as I originally did) then I can’t tell in X-Spam-Status whether the rule applied or not. Now I see the rule in X-Spam-Status with a small value.

So far this seems to have helped. Encouraged by this, I’ve added another couple of specifications to /etc/spamassassin/local.cf, to wit:

ok_languages en fr
ok_locales en fr

Which should act to increase the “spaminess” score of emails in other languages and character sets. A couple of mail users are French speakers, but AFAIK nobody using tarragon for mail speaks any other language or/and receives mail in another language.

IPv6 implementation

This post describes my first attempt at implementation of IPv6, a process that took place over a span of a couple of months. After this was done, and was working, a “better way” emerged, which will be the subject of an additional post. I leave this in here for the sake of documenting what I did the first time, but in the unlikely event that anyone finds this while looking on the net for information about implementing a similar arrangement, I urge you to find the other post, and read it as well. This implementation was fragile.

A few weeks back (10 Feb) my friend Mr. G and I exchanged an email in which he said of a possible project “…but this would be an opportunity to learn IPv6”, reminding me that I have for a long time wanted to learn more about IPv6. Part of the genesis of that email conversation was a recent switch by my brother-in-law to a new ISP that employed CGN, so called Carrier Grade Nat, which had disrupted arrangements I had in place for reaching my brother-in-law’s home network. Mr G. opined that the move towards CGN, and other things the ISPs were doing, raised the specter that someday, perhaps sooner than we expect, anyone desiring to do more with their network than occasionally use a browser would find ourselves having to move to ipv6.

More, I have actually wanted to use IPv6 for a long while, but had been under the impression (erroneously) that Comcast really wasn’t ready for this, that all they would give me was a 6to4 tunnel, which I barely understood anyway.

Continue reading IPv6 implementation