On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:52:11 -0500
>dman([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>
> have just whipped up some documentation regarding setting up exim
> and spamassassin. Basically I just outlined my setup, which Works For
> Me :-).
Thanks dman. I have set it all up as you outlined, and
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>> ''bounce'' or ''redistribute'' it, as forwards are very hard to
>> de-forward-ize -- the format is different for each MUA :(
>
> Wouldn't it be easy to set up something that would process mail that
> is forwarded as a MIME attachment? That preserves
I think the normal way to deal with this is for RPM users to just give the RPM a version number that's something sensible derived from the package version number.
C
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 20:33, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Fine, until you throw that at CPAN.pm, which checks $SomeModule::VERSI
> ''bounce'' or ''redistribute'' it, as forwards are very hard to
> de-forward-ize -- the format is different for each MUA :(
Wouldn't it be easy to set up something that would process mail that is
forwarded as a MIME attachment? That preserves the headers even better
than bouncing and is someth
> You seem to believe that RPMs and other package tools require versions of
> the form x.y.z. Although I know nothing about RPMs, I know Debian finds
> 2.01 as a perfectly acceptable version number.
Yes a perfectly acceptable version number. But which version is the
later, 2.01 or 2.1?
> If Re
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:37PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > wide scheme of things, because in Perl we have CPAN, and CPAN treats
> > $VERSION as a floating point number, and does comparisons that way, and
>
> I think it would be a fine compromise to consider perl versions as
> perl versions i
> wide scheme of things, because in Perl we have CPAN, and CPAN treats
> $VERSION as a floating point number, and does comparisons that way, and
I think it would be a fine compromise to consider perl versions as
perl versions internal to CPAN and the program version for other usage
as the externa
Duncan Findlay said:
> > I was looking to how I could just delete mail that is flagged for/as SPAM
> > rather than leaving it in the users, inbox. I run a small domain here,
> > and the users agree that spam assassin is great, and they have enough
> > confidence in it that it would just be safe
Daniel Pittman said:
> Hi. I noticed on the website for SpamAssassin, which is a very nice
> tool, that there is a mailing list for SPAM that was not caught to be
> sent to for analysis.
> What I am not sure of is how, exactly, I should be forwarding this mail.
''bounce'' or ''redistribute'' i
> Fine, until you throw that at CPAN.pm, which checks $SomeModule::VERSION <
> $RemoteCPANSomeModule::VERSION before trying to install something.
>
> Think very carefully about breaking CPAN installation before going off on a
> rant about this.
I will return your statement to you. Think very ca
Greg Ward said:
> Here's a candidate replacement test using two regexes:
>
> /^[A-Z0-9\$\.,\'\!\?\s]+$/ && /[A-Z]/
>
> This will match any line that consists solely of caps, digits, and
> punctuation *as long as it contains at least one letter*.
>
> Can you define tests that way in the .cf
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:44:38AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> What I am not sure of is how, exactly, I should be forwarding this mail.
>
> Do I send it as an RFC 822 attachment or what?
I subscribed to the list for about 2 hours, figuring that it would be about
heuristics to better find like
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:12:17PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> We really need to stop people using lockfiles for spamc rules in
> procmail -- anyone know where people are copying that example from so I
> can fix the docs?
>
How 'bout removing the EXITCODE stuff? That leads to bouces. Without
We really need to stop people using lockfiles for spamc rules in procmail -- anyone know where people are copying that example from so I can fix the docs?
C
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 17:55, B. Cook wrote:
On 28 Jan 2002 20:45 EST you wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:28:41PM -0500, B.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:31:28PM -0500, Christopher Lansdown wrote:
>
> X-Mailer: Advanced Mass Sender 3.61b
>
> I mean, shouldn't that be worth at least *1* point? (I just got one today
> -- it got marked as spam anyway, but not for this.)
>
> Just an idea.
>
Don't argue with the GA! Lea
X-Mailer: Advanced Mass Sender 3.61b
I mean, shouldn't that be worth at least *1* point? (I just got one today
-- it got marked as spam anyway, but not for this.)
Just an idea.
-Chris Lansdown
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> http://cs.alfred.edu/~lansdoct/
"If I had had more time I would have wri
On 28 Jan 2002 20:45 EST you wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:28:41PM -0500, B. Cook wrote:
> > How would I go about this, I'm running spamd / spamc and using a global procmailrc
>on FreeBSD -stable.
>
> send it to /dev/null, modify the trap rule to something like:
>
> :0:
> * ^Subjec
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:28:41PM -0500, B. Cook wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was looking to how I could just delete mail that is flagged for/as SPAM
> rather than leaving it in the users, inbox. I run a small domain here,
> and the users agree that spam assassin is great, and they have enough
> confi
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:28:41PM -0500, B. Cook wrote:
> How would I go about this, I'm running spamd / spamc and using a global procmailrc
>on FreeBSD -stable.
send it to /dev/null, modify the trap rule to something like:
:0:
* ^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
--
[E
Hello,
I was looking to how I could just delete mail that is flagged for/as SPAM rather than
leaving it in the users, inbox. I run a small domain here, and the users agree that
spam assassin is great, and they have enough confidence in it that it would just be
safe enough to delete the messag
I can't believe this made it in as spam, and with a high score!
(x is me censoring)
Regards,
Andrew
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 358 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2002 12:26:01 -
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.31.128)
by
Hi. I noticed on the website for SpamAssassin, which is a very nice
tool, that there is a mailing list for SPAM that was not caught to be
sent to for analysis.
What I am not sure of is how, exactly, I should be forwarding this mail.
Do I send it as an RFC 822 attachment or what?
Maybe improvin
Hi there.
I'm new to the SpamAssassin world, so I hope this issue hasn't been
discussed to death already.
SpamAssassin first come to my attention on the MIMEDefang mailing
list when SA integration was added to 'Fang. I've been playing with
it for a little while now, and I've been very please
On 28 Jan 2002 at 6:36, Steinar Fremme wrote:
> I have installed the Milter - spammass og Mail::SpamAssassin on my
> mailserver.
>
> When I send an testmail incuding spam to an local account,
> all seems to work as planed, but - the senmail log sayeing
>
> ** spamd :: identified spam f
I've just finished up version 0.2 of my sa-user-admin cgi. From the
changelog:
* Added support for individual user preferences for vpopmail domains.
* Now using maildrop.
* Added support for individual user mail filters using maildrop and
sqwebmail.
* Added support to save vpopmail default de
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:11:48PM -0500, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> > Nope, in fact RFC 822 requires that case in the local-part of addresses
> > be preserved, with the exception that the postmaster address must be
> > deliverable regardless of case. Most mailers by default do not distinguish
> >
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:06:39PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
> Nope, in fact RFC 822 requires that case in the local-part of addresses
> be preserved, with the exception that the postmaster address must be
> deliverable regardless of case. Most mailers by default do not distinguish
> case as bei
> Nope, in fact RFC 822 requires that case in the local-part of addresses
> be preserved, with the exception that the postmaster address must be
> deliverable regardless of case. Most mailers by default do not distinguish
> case as being important, but the RFC does allow them to if they wish.
I
On 28 January 2002, Sidney Markowitz said:
> The comments show that the rule had earlier been modified to not match
> on a line with all spaces. I think it has to not match on lines like
> this:
>
> 1. FEATURES
Oops, good point -- my simple-minded test would have flagged that.
> Maybe it would
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:18:02PM -0500, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> > Well and good, until you run across a site that distinguishes case on
> > names, e.g. in Sendmail via:
> >
> > MODIFY_MAILER_FLAGS(`LOCAL', `+u')
>
> Interesting. I was under the impression that case-insensitivity was mandated
> Well and good, until you run across a site that distinguishes case on
> names, e.g. in Sendmail via:
>
> MODIFY_MAILER_FLAGS(`LOCAL', `+u')
>
> Which (as a rare boundary case) would allow evil spam from
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with a whitelist entry for your good
> buddy "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Inter
* Andrew Kohlsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-01-27 19:05-0800]:
> It appears that the whitelist_from parameters of SpamAssassin (at
> least those found in the SQL database) are case sensitive. Since
> email address are not case sensitive, should the check also be
> case-insensitive?
Well and goo
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 07:04, Greg Ward wrote:
> If you read the regex carefully, you'll realize that there are some odd
> restrictions on that line of yelling:
> * it must be at least 45 characters long
> * there must be a "word" at least 5 characters long in the middle,
> at least 20 char
Actually, I've been thinking strongly about tracking the total score from that
recipient, and the number of messages seen, then regressing the score for a new
message toward the mean. ie:
message9 comes in from userA
score message9 against patterns, etc.
retrieve total of scores for message1..me
From: "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:24:17PM -, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> | I've been saying all along - in perl $VERSION is a
> | number. So it does numeric comparison, just like I described.
>
> Sorry, I have trouble remembering which operator in perl is numeric
> and
I have installed 2.01 (1.5 > 2.0 > 2.01) and it is tagging mail
perfectly; however:
it is not reading the configuration files I have in place
(either in /usr/share/spamassassin or /etc/mail/spamassassin)...
I have modified both 10_misc.cf and
/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin.cf to bump up req
Hi,
I discovered spamassassin a few weeks ago, I use it with spamass-milter
for sendmail and it works very well on my poor old sluggish P200. In
fact I've just one problem with it, I use a simple script to extract
spammer's email adresses from sendmail's logs, it works for mails sent
to my real ad
On 26 January 2002, Sidney Markowitz said:
> Here are some excerpts from a spam that scored 4.9 using a cvs pull from
> a few weeks ago and 4.2 with a fresh cvs pull. I think someone has
> introduced a bug into the LINE_OF_YELLING rule:
>
> [begin excerpts]
>
> HAPPY NEW YEAR!
> INSTEAD OF GIVIN
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:24:17PM -, Matt Sergeant wrote:
| > | > Gosh, 2.2 _is_ significantly older than 2.14. Who would have guessed?
| > |
| > | Fine, until you throw that at CPAN.pm, which checks $SomeModule::VERSION
| <
| > | $RemoteCPANSomeModule::VERSION before trying to install somet
> | > Gosh, 2.2 _is_ significantly older than 2.14. Who would have guessed?
> |
> | Fine, until you throw that at CPAN.pm, which checks $SomeModule::VERSION
<
> | $RemoteCPANSomeModule::VERSION before trying to install something.
> |
> | Think very carefully about breaking CPAN installation befor
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:48:25AM -, Matt Sergeant wrote:
| From: "Bob Proulx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
|
| > > | > 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 o
Hi everyone. I finally got SpamAssassin 2.01 working on my shell account
and I love it so far! I've been lurking on the list for a few weeks now.
Quite lively around here.
I was poking around in my auto whitelist database and I was surprised to
see some obvious spammer addresses in there alr
From: "Bob Proulx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > | > 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 2.14.4096 (like Apache does it:).
> > |
> > | Um, 2.2.* is older
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Proulx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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?
Underscore is a no-op in numbers in Perl. Try it:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, rODbegbie wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Why did this mail not get marked as spam, despite getting 5.0 hits?
Because 4.99 = 5.0.
> 2) Why did it not register as HTML text with no plaintext?
That test only catches single-part messages; Yours was multi-part with
only one p
45 matches
Mail list logo
