Scott Griffith, ISES-LLC said:
> Thanks again to all the contributors for what is turning out to be a
> very well-founded open development effort.
Cheers! Now let's hope there's no more show-stoppers in 2.01 ;)
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing li
On Jan 25, Justin Mason wrote:
> Here's 2.01, a bugfix release for 2.0, since whitelist_to etc. were
> not working.
>
> http://SpamAssassin.org/downloads.html
An outstanding effort: thanks very much, speaking only for myself as a
overly-paranoid mailserver owner.
I do think that this i
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > there are several domain in 60_whitelist by default in 2.1. why would
it
> > not be checked by spamd?
>
> works for me (tm) ;) Are you sure your config files are sane and
> installed?
>
> --j.
This Works:
echo "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" | spamc
This Doesnt Work:
OK, compromise ;)
Here's 2.01, a bugfix release for 2.0, since whitelist_to etc. were
not working.
http://SpamAssassin.org/downloads.html
changes:
- whitelist_to did not work with multiple To or CC addresses. fixed.
- ^M's in headers are now ignored, for compatibility with MUAs an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> there are several domain in 60_whitelist by default in 2.1. why would it
> not be checked by spamd?
works for me (tm) ;) Are you sure your config files are sane and
installed?
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMA
Shane Williams said:
> I've noticed that whitelisting_to only seems to work when the
> recipient address in question is the first (maybe only) address listed
> in either To: or CC: headers.
Agh, well illustrated -- I've found it. That's a bug alright.
Looks like there'll be a 2.1 bugfix releas
"Kelly Hamlin" said:
> Whats the diffremce between /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf and =
> /root/.spamassassin/user_prefs?
The former is run for all users -- the latter just for mail to root.
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Lipkis said:
> Looks like the waitpid() loop got put in the wrong place in spamd in the
> 2.0 release. It needs to be the last statement in the for, but it ended up
> as the last statement in the spawned sub, so runs in the wrong process.
doh, well spotted.
--j.
_
Julian Field said:
> The docs say that Net::DNS is optional, and not required.
> But the Makefile.PL insists on it being installed.
> If you fiddle the Makefile.PL, then it all seems to work without it.
> So is it really required, or is it optional?
> If this is a bug, is there likely to be a 2.
Whats the diffremce between
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf and
/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs?
You might wanna consider running a forum, im a
developer on OpenBB (http://www.openbb.net) and can help
with anything you might need. OBB needs MySQL and PHP. Its fast and powerful and
a great way for us spamassassin junkies to communicate. Just a thought :) i
can even host it if you want, o
Just want to see if the list will handle this message with spamd launched
using -F 0.
Please discard.
Dallas
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
- Original Message -
From: "Shane Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:43 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is anyone else seeing messages from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> spamassassin-talk getting munged. I've gotten three in the la
David N. Blank-Edelman said:
> The Makefile.PL has roughly this at the top:
> my $DEF_RULES_DIR = ''
> my $LOCAL_RULES_DIR = '';
> This would seem to be the (undocumented) place that one should
> change to get the default rules dir and the site-specific to live
> somewhere else
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:21:50 -0500
From: "Jeremy L. Gaddis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "debian-security list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE:SpamAssassin (Was Re: SOME ITEMS THAT YOU MAY BEINTERESTED IN OR BE
ABLE TO ADVISE ME ON)
Heh, what's funny is that SpamAs
Duncan Findlay wrote:
[...]
>
> The only thing is that we tend to have new features ready for release much
> faster, rather than waiting for hundreds of them, so this would be a
> problem, new features that are quite stable don't get to the users fast
> enough.
>
>
Uh, based on Justin's n
Is anyone else seeing messages from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
spamassassin-talk getting munged. I've gotten three in the last day
or so where the list headers look fine, but then the original headers
(from him to the list server) appear as text in the message. The
dividing point between the two is a
Duncan Findlay said:
> > - some spamc/spamd command line arg semantics changed (hence the major
> > # change)
> Is the only difference the -f flag as mandatory? I didn't see anything
> else. (I was, however, hoping that spamassassin -P would become standard)
argh, yes, that was intended
For those interested
http://sairys.bomb.net/sendmail-webstats.tar.gz
put in your cgi-bin dir and browse to
it.
produces stats to the web, must have apache (or
some httpd daemon running)
To see a sample, http://sairys.bomb.net/sample.gif
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:59:35AM +, Ian Briggs wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Shane Williams wrote:
>
> > Will the 2.0 code continue to get bug fixes with the 2.1
> > series focusing on enhancements, or should I follow the 2.1 code to
> > get the latest fixes?
>
> Speaking as a novice at th
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Shane Williams wrote:
> Will the 2.0 code continue to get bug fixes with the 2.1
> series focusing on enhancements, or should I follow the 2.1 code to
> get the latest fixes?
Speaking as a novice at these things, I like the Linux way of numbering,
so 2.0.x fixes any bugs, an
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 24 16:35:57 2002
Received: from sonic.nmgi.com (HELO DEVO) (64.217.128.161)
by 0 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 22:35:55 -
Message-ID: <01ca01c1a527$707afb20$960111ac@DEVO>
Reply-To: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 24 13:59:59 2002
Received: from sonic.nmgi.com (HELO DEVO) (64.217.128.161)
by 0 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 19:59:58 -
Message-ID: <00af01c1a511$a7a574b0$960111ac@DEVO>
Reply-To: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
The README file in the sql directory should explain most of what you need.
Basically, it will read the same options that could be set in the user's
$HOME/.spamassassin/user_prefs file.
Justin England [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator
E-Net Information Services
Hey all,
I'm currently looking into the ability of spamassassin to store stuff in
sql, but I cant really find much docs on it..
What exactly, at this point, can be stored in sql ?
Can one store a complete prefs file in sql, a black/whitelist or only
the scores, which i'm sure that can be stored
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:49:57PM -0700, John wrote:
> Is there a way of placing the SPAM score into the subject line so I can
> quickly review the lower scoring SPAM?
>
Hmm... I knew I wanted to suggest this, but never got around to it :-)
It is now officially bug #5
http://www.hughes-famil
Is there a way of placing the SPAM score into the subject line so I can
quickly review the lower scoring SPAM?
--
John Lang,
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BrightNoise Inc.,
16111 East Carmel Drive,
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Tel: (480) 837-5483, Fax: (480) 837-5189
_
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:51:42AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think most of the bugs encountered so far in 2.0 have been relatively
> minor ones. No branching has yet been done in CVS -- there is only the
> "2.0" codeline. Since we never branched before, nobody's yet followed up
> on
Howdy-
First, thanks to the whole crew for all of the work that has been
put into this package. I had two quick questions about 2.0+ just to
confirm my understanding.
The Makefile.PL has roughly this at the top:
my $DEF_RULES_DIR = ''
my $LOCAL_RULES_DIR = '';
This would see
Matt Sergeant wrote:
[...]
>>Um, 2.2.* is older than 2.14.*
>>
>>It's MAJOR.MINOR., not a decimal number. 2 is less than 14,
>>hence it's older.
>>
>
> No, this is Perl. Version numbers are floating point numbers. (yes I know
> it's a crap situation, but that's just how it works).
>
> Note:
I think most of the bugs encountered so far in 2.0 have been relatively
minor ones. No branching has yet been done in CVS -- there is only the
"2.0" codeline. Since we never branched before, nobody's yet followed up
on the suggestions to do so with this release. This is probably a good
ifea
First thank you for fixing the SUBJECT header catch and adding a rule in
for the ALL_CAPS_SUBJECT. Excellent Idea.
Would all caps checks on the others like...
TO
FROM
CONTENT-TYPE
Be another test to add?
-
Jason Portwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Sp
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Jan 24, Shane Williams wrote:
>
> > So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
> > confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
> > bugs. Are fixes to those bugs
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On 24 January 2002, Matt Sergeant said:
> > No, this is Perl. Version numbers are floating point
> numbers. (yes I know
> > it's a crap situation, but that's just how it works).
>
> I think that rule was broken when t
On Jan 24, Shane Williams wrote:
> So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
> confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
> bugs. Are fixes to those bugs being rolled into the 2.0 code, or only
> being applied to the 2.1 code?
Ditto; I was just ab
On 24 January 2002, Matt Sergeant said:
> No, this is Perl. Version numbers are floating point numbers. (yes I know
> it's a crap situation, but that's just how it works).
I think that rule was broken when the next version after Perl 5.005
became Perl 5.6. Didn't they even introduce a new type e
[me, explaining my test run of SA]
> No -- I ran a loop like this:
>
> for msg in greg-spam.mdir/cur/* ; do
> echo $msg
> out=greg-spam-out.mdir/cur/`basename $msg`
> spamassassin -c ~/share/spamassassin -t < $msg> $out
> done
[dman responded]
> How did you invoke mutt?
> Was i
The docs say that Net::DNS is optional, and not required.
But the Makefile.PL insists on it being installed.
If you fiddle the Makefile.PL, then it all seems to work without it.
So is it really required, or is it optional?
If this is a bug, is there likely to be a 2.0-2 release, or are things l
I've noticed that whitelisting_to only seems to work when the
recipient address in question is the first (maybe only) address listed
in either To: or CC: headers.
For instance, I have a whitelist_to entry for [EMAIL PROTECTED] This
works for messages with headers like:
From: "Eugene Oden" <[EMA
So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
bugs. Are fixes to those bugs being rolled into the 2.0 code, or only
being applied to the 2.1 code?
I guess this sort of goes back the version numbering question
> This is fixed in SpamAssassin 2.0
I got my Ver 1.5 source from the download link on the website. Is it out of
date, should I still ignore the error, or why & how should I upgrade?
Thanks,
MC
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
* Matt Sergeant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Thomas Hurst"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Um, 2.2.* is older than 2.14.*
> >
> > It's MAJOR.MINOR., not a decimal number. 2 is less than
> > 14, hence it's older.
>
> No, this is Perl. Version numbers are floating poi
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Ged Haywood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest a two digit minor version number, for example 2.01.2023
> > rather than 2.1.2023, because then we don't have the stupidity of
> > version 2.2.2023 being older than 2.1
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Coughlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm got that error on make test:
>
> Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of failed
> --
--
> ---
> t/strip2.t 123
Justin fixed that -today-. LOL.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Kelsey Cummings wrote:
> I haven't been follow the list very closely for a while, too darn busy, so
> forgive me if this has already be covered and fixed in the release.
>
> Just got this in my spamcan:
>
> X-envelope-info: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Charlie Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
>
> > I think that 4.33 might be a little aggressive for HTML-only mail.
> > Especially with a default threshhold of 5.
>
> > Finally, I see why this matches the 'Forged eudoramail.c
I haven't been follow the list very closely for a while, too darn busy, so
forgive me if this has already be covered and fixed in the release.
Just got this in my spamcan:
X-envelope-info: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DATE: 23 Sep 01 1:02:40 AM
FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUBJECT: DO YOU WANT TO QUIT SMOKIN
47 matches
Mail list logo
