On 13/04/2014 08:10, Andrew Fried wrote:
Any chance you could provide a *clue* as to what you're seeing, eg
message subject, from, etc???
The subjects seem to vary; but appear to involve animals, sex and cute
women in various orders (apologies to anyone offended by that).
Content is a one-li
Any chance you could provide a *clue* as to what you're seeing, eg
message subject, from, etc???
Andrew Fried
andrew.fr...@gmail.com
On 4/13/14, 1:00 AM, Babak Farrokhi wrote:
> We are not using spamasassin and only major RBLs in place and seeing the same
> wave of spam. Seems like a new botnot
We are not using spamasassin and only major RBLs in place and seeing the same
wave of spam. Seems like a new botnot has just appeared.
-- Babak
--
Babak Farrokhi
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> massive porn spam is making it through spamassassin. new fi
about a hundred copies. Whoever is
responsible for this spamrun is not the brightest light in the world.
Thanks,
Sabri
- Original Message -
> From: "Randy Bush"
> To: "North American Network Operators' Group"
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:39:36 PM
>
massive porn spam is making it through spamassassin. new filter oops?
randy, still researching
> The correct score has been pushed, as Simon Perreault mentioned. Taking
> out anything you've done and running sa-update should get you a working
> ruleset.
thank you
randy
be done understanding your own Bayesian database.
They can confirm they received the correct update if the rule score for
BAYES_999 changes to 0.2, i.e. for a default path 3.4.0 installation:
grep BAYES_999
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf
gives
score BAYES_
--As of February 20, 2014 11:22:34 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to have
said:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/183433
as blabby as nanog, and not really specific
body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_
Le 2014-02-19 21:48, Randy Bush a écrit :
> as the fix is not yet out, would be cool if someone with more fu than i
> posted a recipe to hack for the moment.
The fix is out now! :D
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source--> http
On 02/19/14 22:22, Randy Bush wrote:
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/183433
>
> as blabby as nanog, and not really specific
>
>> body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
>> body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/183433
as blabby as nanog, and not really specific
> body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
> body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
> score BAYES_99 0 0 3.8 3.5
>
he Bayes scores unmutable (as discussed in bug 4505)
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Bayes
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.5 -1.9
score BAYES_05 0 0 -0.3 -0.5
score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.001 -0.001
score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.001 -0.001
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
score BAYES_60 0 0 2.51.5
score
would be cool if someone with more fu than
> i posted a recipe to hack for the moment.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/183433
body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00&
> Daniel is correct, he gets a cookie! The the others: please learn to
> recognize when you have no clue.
simon, you just do not understand the purpose of the nanog list
> We've been having the same problem here for the last three days. I
> tracked it down to BAYES_999. Glad to see other people a
aniel Staal a écrit :
> --As of February 19, 2014 9:52:57 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to
> have said:
>
>> in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
>> spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
>> all has dkim.
>>
> A fix should be in the rules update today or tomorrow - or you can rescore
> it to the same as BAYES_99 (someplace in the 3 range by default, I
> believe). That's what used to catch that mail: it used to mean 99-100%,
> and now means 99-99.9%.
trying the copy 99->999 now. thanks!
randy
--As of February 19, 2014 9:52:57 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to have
said:
in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
all has dkim.
clue?
--As for the rest, it is mine.
The spamassassin list
as i said, much of the crap coming through, 10-20 times normal, does not
have dkim. i suggest that focusing on dkim is a red herring. and yes,
i know how dkim works.
> If that is the case, there must be someway to configure to reject if the
> dkim signature is invalid.
5.0-0.8 is a large valus,
il if there's a validation failure. But not simply
because a DKIM signature breaks.
--srs
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Private Sender wrote:
> Spamassassin knows the dkim signature is invalid, so there must be a dns
> query that occurs at this point in the message processing.
>
&g
er it is spam or
> not.
>
> --srs
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Randy Bush wrote:
>
Yeah, it just validates the domain that the email came from.
But,
"X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on ran.psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 requ
On 2/18/2014 8:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
They are smart and dkim sign their messages; even though it's invalid I
believe that's why it has such a low bayes score.
lots of the spam getting through has no dkim
It's getting marked as ham and not spam. Are you positive your
definitions are still u
s
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Randy Bush wrote:
> in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
> spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
> all has dkim.
>
> clue?
>
>
--
--srs (iPad)
On 02/18/2014 05:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
all has dkim.
It's been a while since i've been in this world, but I wonder whether
bayes filters are
> They are smart and dkim sign their messages; even though it's invalid I
> believe that's why it has such a low bayes score.
lots of the spam getting through has no dkim
> It's getting marked as ham and not spam. Are you positive your
> definitions are still updating?
sa-update has run. and
Randy Bush wrote:
in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
all has dkim.
clue?
randy
From: "SmallCapStockPlays"
Subject: Could VIIC be our biggest play in 2014? Check the stock today
To:
in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
spamassassin to my users and to me. see appended for example. not
all has dkim.
clue?
randy
From: "SmallCapStockPlays"
Subject: Could VIIC be our biggest play in 2014? Check the stock today
To:
Date: Tue, 18 Feb
26 matches
Mail list logo
