On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:24:28PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
| > Note: letters will break this too.
|
| Letters are a pain because there are so few of them. When you run
| past z you either go to aa or decide that perhaps .27 is not such a
| bad idea after all.
Depends on what the letter is us
Would anybody be interested in writing a (simple) manpage for spamproxy, or
simply POD documentation.
Debian policy requires it :-(
It's bug 7 in Bugzilla :-)
--
Duncan Findlay
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourc
Hello,
I just installed Spamassassin sitewide, and love it! Thanks for a Great
Program. Now, a couple of questions. At the same time, I installed
MailScanner for virus scanning of attachments. MailScanner supports
SpamAssassin; however, it isn't clear whether the spamc or the
spamassissin per
jm> wierd. for 3 months, nobody but spammers sent HTML-only mail, now
jm> everyone's doing it :( Better mod the score downwards...
cewatts> Is the really high HTML-only score a GA-created one? WOW, is
cewatts> that high.
jm> yeah, goes to show how effective it was, until all these other
jm> m
When I posted my previous comment about versions numbers I had not yet
noticed the discussion about it here. But version numbers are a pet
peeve of mine so watch out!
I can't suggest strongly enough that whole numbers separated by dots
is the cleanest solution available. Version numbers are not
> Use letters for the second part.
> 2.a.7.
> 2.b.12
> Just to be different. Everybody already uses numbers ... so mundane.
And so standard and usable by a large audience of people and
programs. If you want people to use the programs then things should
not be difficult just to be different.
Jus
> 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).
Then how do you explain 5.005_03? Or 5.6.1? What kind of floating
point numbers are those? Even perl gave up on the leading zeros of
5.005_03 style of version num
> I am using spamassassin site wide with qmail-scanner. I was wondering if it
> is possible to defer the mail, instead of delivering or bouncing the mail?
> Does anyone do this? Is it recommended?
If you deferred it now, that would mean that it would resend the
message again in a few (30?) min
> > yep, I've just added that for 2.1devel. *just* missed the 2.0
> > release ;)
>It's ok, you can release it in "2.00.01" ;^).
Just a nit but leading zeros in version numbers are not desirable.
Make that 2.0.1. Whole numbers separated by dots make automated
processing by autorpm and dpkg a
545 is right around where the syslog stuff is -- Do you have syslog running on your system?
C
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 15:12, Gary de Montigny wrote:
Hello,
I just finished installing the new version 2.01 of SpamAssassin and I am
having trouble getting spamd to run. I get the followi
Hello,
I just finished installing the new version 2.01 of SpamAssassin and I am
having trouble getting spamd to run. I get the following error then it
exits:
connect: no such file or directory (sock_dgram after trying sock_stream)
at /usr/bin/spamd line 545
Any idea or work around? Thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
> You're spot on -- and I guess it's not optimal. ;)
>
> However SpamAssassin and spamd allow -c and -p args to let the user
> override these locations at runtime.
Ok, cool. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I
changed our local copy'
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:38:28PM +1100, Justin Mason wrote:
> Freaky:
> >I think maybe we should seperate the rules and the software. People
> >who don't want to sit on the bleeding edge of the Perl may still like to
> >stick to up to date rulesets, and it opens the road up for external apps
>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:16:35AM -0500, Fox wrote:
> My own spam warfare software, "SpamJammer", which I will be releasing the
> code to soon, will clear the whitelist count for an address any time a spam
> comes from that address. So if address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is almost whitelisted
> (three
Yes, you should remove it.
C
brad wrote:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:08:28 -0800 (PST)
> From: brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Spam Assassin List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SAtalk] My own follow up to procmail issue
>
>
> Should I remove the : after 0fw?
>
> :0fw:
> | spamc -f
>
> :0e
> {
At 11:08 AM 1/25/2002 -0800, brad wrote:
>Should I remove the : after 0fw?
>
>:0fw:
>| spamc -f
>
>:0e
>{
>EXITCODE=$?
>}
That recipe doesn't deliver anything so -- yes!
reb
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourcefo
Should I remove the : after 0fw?
:0fw:
| spamc -f
:0e
{
EXITCODE=$?
}
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>procmail: Couldn't determine implicit lockfile from "spamc"
What could be causing this?
- Transcript of session follows -
>... while talking to mail-incoming.hostsave.com.:
> >>> DATA
><<< 550 5.7.2 Refused at request of postmaster
>554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
>procmail: Coul
This sounds most like my own preference too.
C
Donald Greer wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:53:43 -0600
> From: Donald Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spam Assassin List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Stable 2.0 vs. fixes
>
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > The only thin
Thomas Hurst wrote:
> I think maybe we should seperate the rules and the software. People
> who don't want to sit on the bleeding edge of the Perl may still like to
> stick to up to date rulesets, and it opens the road up for external apps
> to use it more easily.
Trouble is the rules which ge
I seem to get this error sometimes when procmail runs SpamAssassin. I'm not
sure, but perhaps it's happening when it tries to add to the auto whitelist? I
have lots of addresses successfully auto-whitelisted, though.
Any ideas?
gdbm store returned -1, errno 9, key "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" at
/usr/loc
Hi --
I've been running SpamAssassin 1.5 for site-wide filtering on my exim-based
mail server, using the spamcheck.pl script from "Stopping Spam at the Front
Door" (http://bogmog.sourceforge.net/document_show.php3?doc_id=28). It
seems to be working well, but I have a couple of questions/comme
My own spam warfare software, "SpamJammer", which I
will be releasing the code to soon, will clear the whitelist count for an
address any time a spam comes from that address. So if address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is almost whitelisted (three
successful messages) with two successful messages, but s
> Also, I haven't applied Andrew K's patch for spamc to handle EXT and HOST;
> I'd prefer to do that in the 2.1 devel tree.
Sounds good to me, I've only really been able to cursory test the code anyway.
It seems to work well, even when you specify environment variables which
don't exist (i.e.
24 matches
Mail list logo
