Re: spamassassin

[Jussi Ekholm]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Justin Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jussi Ekholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> When one does get through, I've been submitting it by hitting S in
>>> the index, which pipes it to spamassassin -d.
>> Why _on earth_ do you want to run SA with -d switch in this kind of
>> situation? 
> 
> You want to report the original spam message. Not the SpamAssassin
> modified message. The -d flag will strip the added SA headers and
> text.

Yes, I'm aware of this. But still, somehow I feel, that the original
author didn't have this in his mind (correct me if I'm wrong, of
course). Although, maybe I'm trying to be too besserwisser here and
speculating things that I shouldn't be doing. 

I'm just wondering if the original author really meant '-d' option, or
something different. I just pointed it out (as did someone else, I
notice) as it sounded a bit odd thing to do *when* a spam gets
through, as the sentence before that was about how greatly the filters
have worked and so on.

Just tryin' to help...

- -- 
Jussi Ekholm  --  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  --  http://erppimaa.ihku.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9YK5GAtEARxQQCB4RArd8AJ0atTsBGw3W2HZBYtW25pVM1ZvLngCbBnyG
16RF7aXLK7mh2shXHZ/ouu4=
=pc99
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: spamassassin

[Kevin Coyner]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote..

> 
> Yes, I'm aware of this. But still, somehow I feel, that the original
> author didn't have this in his mind (correct me if I'm wrong, of
> course). Although, maybe I'm trying to be too besserwisser here and
> speculating things that I shouldn't be doing. 
> 
> I'm just wondering if the original author really meant '-d' option, or
> something different. I just pointed it out (as did someone else, I
>

Oops.  Yes, I did mean '-r' and not '-d'.  I set my SP up directly with
the tips from http://codesorcery.net/docs/spamtricks.html.
Specifically .

"2. Another trick is a combination of configurations that allows you to
both see whether something is listed in Vipul's Razor, (one of the tests
used in SpamAssassin) and to report it to Razor if it is not. To let you
know if it's already reported: 

message-hook "~h RAZOR" "unignore X-Spam-Status"

If it's not reported (and you choose to), you may easily report the mail
with the keystroke S if you use this:

macro index S "| spamassassin -r" "report message to Vipul's Razor" "


> Just tryin' to help...
>

Thanks!  You've been very helpful to me.

Kevin


-- 
Kevin Coyner
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG key: 1024D/8CE11941



msg30338/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: spamassassin

[Kevin Coyner]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:00:11PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote..
> 
> I press 'S' on a spam, which adds the From-header to this file formail
> goes through everytime mail comes in, and if the address can be found
> from this file, the mail gets /dev/nulled. It also adds a
> "blacklist_from foo@bar" entry in ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs. And then
> it moves the mail to spam folder. 
> 
> Here's the macro:
> 
>macro pager S |~/.mutt/addspam.shs="spam\n"
> 
> And the 'addspam.sh' looks like this:
> 
> [...]
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> #
> # $Id: addspam.sh,v 1.5 2002/08/11 07:48:09 ekhowl Exp $
> 
> SPAMASSASSINFILE="/home/ekhowl/.spamassassin/user_prefs"
> SPAMMERSFILE="/home/ekhowl/.procmail/spammers"
>

This looks like a pretty nifty solution.  I was going to give it a try,
but realized I don't know what you have for a recipe in
.procmail/spammers.  I'm not quite intuitive or advanced enough in this
stuff to guess the contents of .procmail/spammers, so would you mind
sharing?  I'd like to give your addspam script a try.

Many thanks, Kevin

> for x in `awk '{if ( $1 == "From:") { for (x = 1 ; x <= NF ;
> x++) { if ($x ~ /[^ ]*@[^ ]*/) { gsub("<|>", "", $x) ; print $x } }
> }}'`
> do
> echo $x >> $SPAMMERSFILE
> echo "blacklist_from $x" >> $SPAMASSASSINFILE
> done
> 
> [...]

-- 
Kevin Coyner
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG key: 1024D/8CE11941



msg30339/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: hook-list menu

[Vikram Goyal]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 06:23:02PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> the distinction between bloat and feature
> are usually subjective to one's preferences.
> 
> i doubt that many users will use such a menu.
> besides - what shall this menu offer?
>  
> 
> Vikram - can you answer these questions for me?
> 
Well Gregor answered your questions before I could:-)

The reason I am saying that this thing to be an added functionality is that
hooks and macros are quite a uniq features of mutt and make it a highly
customisable app. It would be really a boon for people who experiment with
these features and can see what they are supplying to mutt and what its
getting.

Sven - just think about it.
-- 
Vikram Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: spamassassin

[Jussi Ekholm]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Kevin Coyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:00:11PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote..
>> #!/bin/sh
>> #
>> # $Id: addspam.sh,v 1.5 2002/08/11 07:48:09 ekhowl Exp $
> 
> This looks like a pretty nifty solution.

Well, dunno about nifty, but it works - to some extent. :-)

> I was going to give it a try, but realized I don't know what you
> have for a recipe in .procmail/spammers. I'm not quite intuitive or
> advanced enough in this stuff to guess the contents of
> .procmail/spammers, so would you mind sharing? I'd like to give
> your addspam script a try.

Ah, indeed, I forgot - my bad. Here's what I have:

[...]

# $Id: spam.rc,v 1.8 2002/08/19 14:08:44 ekhowl Exp $
...
# Check the list of known spam addresses and kill every mail
# originating from a known spam address.
:0:
* ? (formail -x From: -x Sender: -x Reply-To: -x Received: | fgrep -iqf 
/home/ekhowl/.procmail/spammers)
/dev/null

[...]

There, HTH! It's somewhat working solution -- it was mainly in use
before I got introduced to SpamAssassin. Still, as it is such a heavy
software, I'm having this rule-set which I apply to every incoming
mail _before_ it gets sent to spamd, thus saving CPU and memory.

- -- 
Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |  | <0x1410081E>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9YP6xAtEARxQQCB4RAp4FAJ9RVMAdnbNiNxnlpoDFnxhdbWRGKQCeLH+T
koV/wXaA+bb5QCLjpcwIjOk=
=3czy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

is list down ?

[Patrick]

having seen NO traffic for 3 days, have to wonder, ?? Is the list down? 
-- 
Patrick Shanahan
Registered Linux User #207535 
  @ http://counter.li.org
Please DO NOT carbon me on replies to list, unless you are requesting
duplicate responces.

Re: Mutt hanging on new message. [Solution enclosed!]

[Ryan Sorensen]

It's been a long, hard road, but we're here again.

Recap of the problem:

Mutt would work fine, except when trying to compose a new message, it
would hang after entering subject.

Cause of problem:

set signature='~/.sig'

Now, for the $1000 prize, what could be wrong with that that would cause
mutt to hang the way it was?

'twas a broken pipe.

But we're all better now. Thanks for the responses from the list.

language

[Bytor]

I have just started to use mutt but I have one problem I am hoping I can get some help 
with.  I do send quite a lot of e-mails in Swedish and I am not able to read the extra 
letters that the Swedish alphabet has.  They show up as question marks.  I have emacs 
as my editor and when I send mail to myself I see the letters as numbers.  For example 
344, 345, and 366.  What do I need to do inorder to fix this.
Thaks for the help,
Clyde

Re: language

[Carl Johan Schedvin]

* Bytor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have just started to use mutt but I have one problem I am hoping I can get some 
>help with.  I do send quite a lot of e-mails in Swedish and I am not able to read the 
>extra letters that the Swedish alphabet has.  They show up as question marks.  I have 
>emacs as my editor and when I send mail to myself I see the letters as numbers.  For 
>example 344, 345, and 366.  What do I need to do inorder to fix this.
> Thaks for the help,
> Clyde
> 

First of all, can you use Swedish letters in the console. If can't you
might want to add in /etc/profile

set meta-flag on
set convert-meta off
set output-meta on

and export LC_ALL=sv_SE in ~/.bashrc

this should solve your problems...

I'm Swedish myself..so I know..

Re: is list down ?

[Jussi Ekholm]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> having seen NO traffic for 3 days, have to wonder, ?? Is the list down? 

Seems to be working fine here... anyone else?

- -- 
Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |  | <0x1410081E>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9YTmiAtEARxQQCB4RAkpYAJ9QHjhuZZsBsAGpmlU5E0bzAw9u8wCgiwbX
JSPUr1sNwkCv0A7Wyh48H/Y=
=99PN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[OT] Re: spamassassin

[Philip Mak]

An off-topic query concerning spamassassin:

Can it be set to delete spam automatically (I'm not so interested in
just *marking* spam, because if it only marks spam I still have to
sift through it), without getting too many false positives?

I'm thinking of doing something about the 20+ spam messages I get each
day.

Re: [OT] Re: spamassassin

[Michael Leone]

Philip Mak said:
> An off-topic query concerning spamassassin:
>
> Can it be set to delete spam automatically (I'm not so interested in
> just *marking* spam, because if it only marks spam I still have to sift
> through it), without getting too many false positives?

No. The next version of SA - due out this week - removes the capability to
do delivery of email, so you'll have to rely on procmail or maildrop to do
delivery or deletion.

And there's no way to delete "without getting too many false positives" -
you either delete things marked as spam, or not delete. It's not really
conditional. :-)

You do run the risk of losing legitimate mail if you delete. If you don't,
... well, you should be able to tell legit mail merely by quickly looking
at the subject lines. No need to read the mail.

-- 
PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
Member, LEAF Project AIM: MikeLeone

These are the memories which make me a wealthy soul ...


Random Thought:
--

Re: is list down ?

[David Jardine]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:32:03PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > having seen NO traffic for 3 days, have to wonder, ?? Is the list down? 
> 
> Seems to be working fine here... anyone else?
> 

No problem here.

> - -- 
> Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |  | <0x1410081E>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE9YTmiAtEARxQQCB4RAkpYAJ9QHjhuZZsBsAGpmlU5E0bzAw9u8wCgiwbX
> JSPUr1sNwkCv0A7Wyh48H/Y=
> =99PN
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: New mail notification problems

[Michael Elkins]

Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Ken Weingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-18 08:44]:
> > What would make mutt not report that there is new mail when there is?
> > Sometimes I will find that it indicates that there is
> > no new mail, yet when I change to some folders, there is.
> 
> i recall some problems about modification tims
> vs the file system.  and there were patches.
> i suppose you can search through the messages
> in the bug tracking system - but.. it's Sunday.

The access time (atime) problem is usually the other way around:
reporting new mail when there really isn't any.

The only known issue (afaik) about Mutt *not* reporting new mail is when
the user has "unset mark_old" in their configuration.  In this case a
message that would ordinarily be marked as old is still new, but won't
be detected with the file modification/access time heuristic.

Re: [OT] Re: spamassassin

[Will Yardley]

Michael Leone wrote:
> Philip Mak said:

>> An off-topic query concerning spamassassin:
>>
>> Can it be set to delete spam automatically (I'm not so interested in
>> just *marking* spam, because if it only marks spam I still have to
>> sift through it), without getting too many false positives?
> 
> No. The next version of SA - due out this week - removes the
> capability to do delivery of email, so you'll have to rely on procmail
> or maildrop to do delivery or deletion.
> 
> And there's no way to delete "without getting too many false
> positives" - you either delete things marked as spam, or not delete.
> It's not really conditional. :-)
> 
> You do run the risk of losing legitimate mail if you delete. If you
> don't, ... well, you should be able to tell legit mail merely by
> quickly looking at the subject lines. No need to read the mail.

However, with SA you'd probably be safe sending anything with a score
over 15 or 20 to /dev/null -- maybe even 10.

I prefer not to delete anything - but I also receive spam reports and
stuff to my address occasionally, so I can't run the risk of
accidentally deleting one of those.

-- 
Will Yardley
input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >

Re: New mail notification problems

[Ken Weingold]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002, Michael Elkins wrote:
> The only known issue (afaik) about Mutt *not* reporting new mail is
> when the user has "unset mark_old" in their configuration.  In this
> case a message that would ordinarily be marked as old is still new,
> but won't be detected with the file modification/access time
> heuristic.

I don't have a setting for mark_old at all.  I see sometimes something
flash about new mail, but the status bar never says anything, or
moving the indicator bar or something makes it disappear.  Could the
server (Panix) be running something that is messing up mutt with
respect to reporting new mail?

Thanks.


-Ken

Re: [OT] Re: spamassassin

[Michael Elkins]

Will Yardley wrote:
> I prefer not to delete anything - but I also receive spam reports and
> stuff to my address occasionally, so I can't run the risk of
> accidentally deleting one of those.

I have the same experience.  It's also useful to save your spam so that
you can contribute back the reports on which SA tests match the spam
that you receive so that the scores can be optimized.

PGP & Outlook

[Alan Batie]

I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
between PGP/MIME and Outlook et al that refuse to show signed messages.
They apparently know enough MIME to recognize that they can't handle
"multipart/signed" and don't look inside for the text/plain part.  I
wonder if a separate unsigned text/plain with a small warning about
the contents not being verified would be appropriate?

-- 
Alan Batie   __alan.batie.orgMe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   \/www.qrd.org The Triangle
PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A\  / www.pgpi.com   The Weird Numbers
27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/  spamassassin.taint.org  NO SPAM!

"You just wish sometimes that the [Catholic] Church protected children
as much as it protects fetuses."
-- Lesbian comedian Kate Clinton writing in The Progressive, July issue.



msg30354/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: is list down ? - nope.

[Sven Guckes]

* Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-19 15:05]:
> having seen NO traffic for 3 days,
> have to wonder, ?? Is the list down?

nope - looks fine. there are 31
mails within the last two days.

Sven

=== --verbose:
Mutt 1.4i: =IN/MUTT (threads) [31/45741] [NEW=39643] [~d <2d]
45368 N L 020818 Jussi Ekholm  ( 37) &-&-&-&-&-&->Re: pgp_create_traditional
45563   L 020818 Martin Schweizer  ( 24) &-&->Re: Colapse thread
45612 N L 020819 Vikram Goyal  ( 21) &-&-&-&->Re: hook-list menu
45699   L 020818 Jussi Ekholm  ( 74) &->Re: spamassassin
45700   L 020819 Justin Burke  ( 14)   |->
45701 N L 020819 Jussi Ekholm  ( 36)   | `->
45702 NsL 020819 Kevin Coyner  ( 63)   |   |->
45703 N L 020819 Philip Mak(  8)   |   `->[OT] Re: spamassassin
45704 N L 020819 Michael Leone ( 30)   | `->
45705 N L 020819 Will Yardley  ( 31)   |   `->
45706 N L 020819 Michael Elkins(  8)   | `->
45707 NsL 020819 Kevin Coyner  ( 68)   `->
45708 N L 020819 Jussi Ekholm  ( 47) `->
45711 N L 020819 Ryan Sorensen ( 17) &->Re: Mutt hanging on new message. [So
45725 r L 020818 Ken Weingold  (  8) New mail notification problems
45726 N F 020818 To Mutt Users Lis ( 13) `->
45727   L 020818 Ken Weingold  ( 16)   |->
45728 N L 020819 Michael Elkins( 18)   `->
45729 N L 020819 Ken Weingold  ( 17) `->
45730 rsL 020818 Lee J. Moore  ( 31) Mutt color limitations
45731 N F 020818 To Mutt Users Lis ( 13) `->
45732  sL 020818 Lee J. Moore  ( 52)   `->
45733   L 020818 Martin Schweizer  ( 25) Re: Colapse thread
45734 N L 020819 Thomas Roessler   (  6) [2002-08-19] CVS commit messages
45735 N L 020819 Bob Bell  ( 20) 'lists' and 'subscribe' string matching
45736   L 020819 Patrick   (  7) is list down ?
45737   L 020819 Jussi Ekholm  ( 17) `->
45738   L 020819 David Jardine ( 21)   `->
45739   L 020819 Bytor (  3) language
45740   ! 020819 Carl Johan Schedv ( 18) `->
45741 NsL 020819 Alan Batie( 38) PGP & Outlook
q:Quit  d:Del  u:Undel  s:Save  m:Mail  r:Reply  g:Group  ?:Help

Re: New mail notification problems

[John Iverson]

* On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Michael Elkins wrote:

> The only known issue (afaik) about Mutt *not* reporting new
> mail is when the user has "unset mark_old" in their
> configuration.  In this case a message that would ordinarily be
> marked as old is still new, but won't be detected with the file
> modification/access time heuristic.

I don't know if it's related, but I've noticed the following
behavior which was briefly discussed here before: When you switch
from Mailbox A (index or pager view) to the folder list view,
Mutt won't show the N flag next to Mailbox A when there is new
mail in it.  It doesn't seem to matter whether the new mail was
already there or if it arrives while in folder list view.  If you
then switch to Mailbox B and back to folder view, the N flag for
Mailbox A works again (but now Mailbox B has the same issue).

Can anyone say whether this is a feature or bug?  I'm using
Maildir folders with "set mark_old=no", if that's relevant.

-- 
John

Re: New mail notification problems

[Mike Leone]

* John Iverson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 08 19, 02 at 16:43: 
> * On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Michael Elkins wrote:
> 
> > The only known issue (afaik) about Mutt *not* reporting new
> > mail is when the user has "unset mark_old" in their
> > configuration.  In this case a message that would ordinarily be
> > marked as old is still new, but won't be detected with the file
> > modification/access time heuristic.
> 
> I don't know if it's related, but I've noticed the following
> behavior which was briefly discussed here before: When you switch
> from Mailbox A (index or pager view) to the folder list view,
> Mutt won't show the N flag next to Mailbox A when there is new
> mail in it.  It doesn't seem to matter whether the new mail was
> already there or if it arrives while in folder list view.  If you
> then switch to Mailbox B and back to folder view, the N flag for
> Mailbox A works again (but now Mailbox B has the same issue).
> 
> Can anyone say whether this is a feature or bug?  I'm using
> Maildir folders with "set mark_old=no", if that's relevant.

I use Maildir with IMAP, and I see *no* new mail notifications on the
folders at all. When I open the mailbox (maildir), yes - the index or pager
shows new messages. But using the "c" command to switch folders only ever
shows the name of the folder, and not a new mail notification symbol.

You're saying that you do see a new mail indicator on Maildir (i.e., IMAP)
folders?

Re: hook-list menu - add/change/delete/move items?

[Sven Guckes]

* Vikram Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-19 13:11]:
> The reason I am saying that this thing to be an added
> functionality is that hooks and macros are quite a uniq features
> of mutt and make it a highly customisable app. It would be
> really a boon for people who experiment with these features and
> can see what they are supplying to mutt and what its getting.
>
> Sven - just think about it.

i certainly understand your point.

and i have been discussing this with someone in Krautland, too.
he wrote a simple patch which simply writes out all hooks to a
file on startup.  (he might also be reading this here on the list.)

but like i said:  i don't mind such a menu.
my creation hooks and color setups would
probably have benefitted from such a menu.
i had to restart mutt a *lot* of times
just trying out a new hook for something.
you probably know the feeling "install
a new program and reboot the machine". :-/

anyway, if someone wants to write the code - fine.
i just hope that it also has an answer
to adding/removing and moving hooks...

Sven

Re: PGP & Outlook -> check-traditional-pgp + pgp_create_traditional

[Sven Guckes]

* Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-19 20:12]:
> I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
> between PGP/MIME and Outlook et al that refuse to show signed messages.

yes - someone ought to tell the creators or outlook about RFC2015..

> They apparently know enough MIME to recognize that they can't
> handle "multipart/signed" and don't look inside for the text/plain
> part.  I wonder if a separate unsigned text/plain with a small
> warning about the contents not being verified would be appropriate?

RFC2015.  nuff said.

but as for handling the traditionl pgp" messages -
have you checked out the command "check-traditional-pgp"
and the variable "pgp_create_traditional" yet?

> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

this version was announced on
2001-08-30 - almost a year ago.

in the meantime Thomas Roessler added
the "pgp_create_traditional" command.
so i think you should upgrade.  ;-)

Sven  [it's time for M$ software to follow RFCs!]

=== from the mutt-1.4/ChangeLog :

Tue Mar 26 22:25:48 2002  Thomas Roessler  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* commands.c, ...
  OK, I'm giving up: pgp_create_traditional now creates text/plain;
  x-mutt-action={pgp-encrypt,pgp-sign}.

Tue Feb 13 23:42:29 2001  Thomas Roessler  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* commands.c, ...
  Add a function check-traditional-pgp which can be used to
  handle old-style PGP messages and/or parts more easily.

Re: New mail notification problems

[John Iverson]

* On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Mike Leone wrote:

> I use Maildir with IMAP, and I see *no* new mail notifications
> on the folders at all. When I open the mailbox (maildir), yes -
> the index or pager shows new messages. But using the "c"
> command to switch folders only ever shows the name of the
> folder, and not a new mail notification symbol.
>
> You're saying that you do see a new mail indicator on Maildir
> (i.e., IMAP) folders?

Maildir, but not IMAP (perhaps I misused a term somewhere).

I'm referring to the mailbox browser screen which appears when
you press "?" after pressing "c".

Yes, I do see the new mail indicators, except for the mailbox I
just came from.  (Doesn't matter if I press  to switch
between mailbox and file views.)  When I first start mutt with
"mutt -y" (i.e.  there is no last-visited mailbox), the new mail
indicators for all mailboxes seem to work.

Just curious if this is normal behavior or not.  There did not
seem to be a conclusion last time it was discussed, and I thought
it possible that this is what the original poster was
experiencing.

-- 
John