> I seem to be getting a (presumably) unusally high number of false
> positives. I'm up to 21 in the past week, on an input of 1540
> messages. (Damn, I am on too many mailing lists.) This is about 1.3%,
I think the list wisdom goes with whitelisting mailing lists. But
then you lose the ability
I installed SpamAssassin about a week ago and really love it. However,
I seem to be getting a (presumably) unusally high number of false
positives. I'm up to 21 in the past week, on an input of 1540
messages. (Damn, I am on too many mailing lists.) This is about 1.3%,
which is almost an order of m
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:38:48PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
> | On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | >
> | > A legit message triggered the
> | > FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
> | > test. The header is
> | > From: Linda
This controls whether (1) or not (0) a "From " line is required in
the output. Default is 1, because that seems to work better for a
greater number of people ;)
Added to both spamd and spamassassin.
--j.
--
'Justin Mason' => { url => 'http://jmason.org/', blog => 'http://taint.org/' }
__
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
| >
| > A legit message triggered the
| > FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
| > test. The header is
| > From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >
| > What properites of it make y
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
>
> A legit message triggered the
> FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
> test. The header is
> From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What properites of it make you think it is forged? The test appears
> to match any hotmail address, legit
A legit message triggered the
FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
test. The header is
From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What properites of it make you think it is forged? The test appears
to match any hotmail address, legit or not (though I don't really know
what the "=~" operator does).
-D
* Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > # Hotmail messages have Originating-IP, except mail from abuse/policy.
> > :0 Hf
> > * ^From:.*@hotmail\.com\>
> > * ! ^From:.*\<(postmaster|abuse|policy)@hotmail\.com\>
> > * ! ^X-Originating-IP: \[[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\]
> > | for
That sounds emminently reasonable, since it's easier to delete the line (with formail or tail +2 or whatever) than add it, and we didn't have enough command line options in spamc anyway :)
C
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 19:35, Justin Mason wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is on a spam
> # Hotmail messages have Originating-IP, except mail from abuse/policy.
> :0 Hf
> * ^From:.*@hotmail\.com\>
> * ! ^From:.*\<(postmaster|abuse|policy)@hotmail\.com\>
> * ! ^X-Originating-IP: \[[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\]
> | formail -b -f -A "$trash_header ordinary hotmail invalid
"Olivier M." said:
> not if a md5 hash or any ID field that identify a spamassassin copy
> would be added to the X-Spam-Flag field or anywhere... What do you
> think?
wouldn't work -- the spammers could just run SpamAssassin, get the
hash, and then do the mail-out.
However it would be possible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is on a spamd/spamc setup using qmail and qmail scanner, which then
> forwards the mail to a mirapoint virus scanning server, which if it finds a
> "From" header at the beginning of the line, will MANGLE the header.
OK -- we have several people using spamc/spamd w
Charlie Watts said:
> If we can't get RMS, we can just send the .mp3 of him singing. They'll
> cave in, I'm sure ...
Oh my ghod, the GNU Song. Anything but that! ;)
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforg
Thanks for spamassassin!
Has anyone begun converting the procmail rules here
http://alcor.concordia.ca/topics/email/auto/procmail/spam/reasons/
In particular, there is one that just got through spamassassin-2.0 but
that was caught by this rule from the tag-radical set at the above URL:
[FYI,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
| > Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
| > I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
| > and it's then scanned twice, so spams are
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> > three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't SA check if
> > there is already a "X-Spam-Flag" line in the headers, and
> > skip the mail if it's the case ? :)
>
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
> I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
> and it's then scanned twice, so spams are getting two or event
> three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't
Hello and thanks for spamassassin! :)
I discovered your package yesterday on the vmailmgr mailing
list, and I'm now using it with qmail+qmail-scanner: works
great!
Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
and it's then
We have writing some custom spam rules, and would like your
input
We originally wrote some of these when a blatantly obvious
spam came in with a score of 0
If you could, run them against your mail, and see if it
triggers any false positives..
Thanks
header
CUSTOM_FREE_HD
Title: RE: [SAtalk] Bug in NoMailAudit.pm for Spamassassin 2.0
This is on a spamd/spamc setup using qmail and qmail scanner, which then forwards the mail to a mirapoint virus scanning server, which if it finds a "From" header at the beginning of the line, will MANGLE the header.
Thanks
--
Hello,
Apparently the latest CVS snapshot I got (as of 8:00 AM CST this morning) is
broken.
Any mails processed by SA are getting the initial From clause (not the From:
part of the mail message) stripped out from it, causing grief in our
mailboxes. I have rolled back to the last CVS I was using
> Thank you, this works beautifully. I had failed to mention that
> I did have
> the seek patch already too. :-)
>
> Now to get the SQL implementation going with my modified spamc
> and a quick CGI
> for the users to turn on/off their filtering. Oh yes, and a cron
> job so that
> we only keep t
> I have been using this for about a week now and it works fine.
Thank you, this works beautifully. I had failed to mention that I did have
the seek patch already too. :-)
Now to get the SQL implementation going with my modified spamc and a quick CGI
for the users to turn on/off their filter
> First make sure you have added the "seek.diff" patch to vpopmail so that
> vdeliver can accept multiple pipes. Next change bottom of procmailrc to:
>
Forgot to mention the link to the vpopmail seek patch:
http://www.thesafebox.com/
Here is the discussion regarding it:
http://bluedot.net/m
> I'm setting up another mail system and I'd like to be able to deliver the
> site-wide spam to a single maildir, while letting everything else get
> delivered by vpopmail.
>
> So far I've been unsuccessful because Procmail seems to want to
> either deliver
> everything or nothing; it doesn't (or
I'm setting up another mail system and I'd like to be able to deliver the
site-wide spam to a single maildir, while letting everything else get
delivered by vpopmail.
So far I've been unsuccessful because Procmail seems to want to either deliver
everything or nothing; it doesn't (or rather I d
I updated this morning and hit a snag.
The top most from in the mail header isn't being passed through
now.
For example this is the complete header...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wkrp.com (wkrp.com [199.6.32.180])
by wkrp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0IE5r3246
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Yes, it was the network accesses. We've re-done Razor in-house anyway
> (sorry, but we can't release that code, which is a shame because it
> kicks razor's butt - does n-way replication and multi-tiered servers),
> and will be removing all the DNS check
Assuming you're using spamd, and have syslogging ending up in /var/log/mail/info, and you're smart enough to deal with rotating logfiles, etc:
fgrep -c 'identified spam' /var/log/mail/info
for the number of spams identified and
fgrep -c 'clean message' /var/log/mail/info
for the num
Hi,
I'm trying to install Spamassassin on my linux box and get this error
message. I searched the archives for this error and found that someone
suggested that you delete the spamassassin.cf file, but I don't have one.
So if anybody knows how to get around this any help would be appreciated.
mk
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Matt Sergeant said:
>
> > > Basically a spam-check may take up to 10 seconds per mail, so
> > > sendmail should run only a certain number of concurrent deliveries
> > > (20 or so?) and wait for them to complete
31 matches
Mail list logo
