On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 15:11:59 -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> You can hand edit the Makefile after perl Makefile.PL, but a
> probably better solution would be to find why MakeMaker on your machine
> is trying to link libndbm in. Could you add a line to the Makefile.PL
> in the spamc build rule t
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 18:13:30 -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
> Hmmm, everyone's going on about libndbm, but nobody's asking about Perl.
> It might be Perl's fault that -lndbm is included in the link command for
> spamc. Which Perl version are you using? Is it the Debian package, or
> did you build
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Michael Geier wrote:
[... original message elided by poster ...]
> Maybe some people are taking my recommendation a little to strongly.
>
> In answer to your points:
> [1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
> opinion, any list you belong
Okay, here you go ... a hang:
===
logmsg: connection from earth.hub.org [ 64.49.215.11 ] at port 4329
logmsg: before spawn
logmsg: after spawn
logmsg: connection from earth.hub.org [ 64.49.215.11 ] at port 4331
logmsg: before spawn
logmsg: after spawn
=
And perti
Any suggestions on where you'd like me to throw some debugging in here? :)
On 12 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, interesting. n(spamc)+1 spamd's means that the fork already
> happened for both spamd's. Could you stick a trace on the spamd process
> though instead of spamass-milter? I'd
Ok, interesting. n(spamc)+1 spamd's means that the fork already
happened for both spamd's. Could you stick a trace on the spamd process
though instead of spamass-milter? I'd like to try and figure out where
it's getting to before it gets stuck. Possible alternative to ktrace
(and possibly more
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:38, Michael Geier wrote:
> [1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
> opinion, any list you belong to should be in a whitelist anyway).
What happens for lists to which spammers submit mail? I'd like to be
able to still get effective fil
Wouldn't it be easier/better to change the original rule to accept OE's
undisclosed recipients format instead of adding a new rule? I'm too
sleepy right at the moment to try writing regexes.
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:16, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hu
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 07:38:58PM -0600, Michael Geier wrote:
| Maybe some people are taking my recommendation a little to strongly.
|
| In answer to your points:
| [1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
| opinion, any list you belong to should be in a whitel
Don't know how helpful this will be, but, just started it up and watched
it hang ...
According to /var/log/maillog, as previously noted, the hang is based on a
simultaneous arrival of two messages:
Feb 12 22:01:53 earth sendmail[91753]: g1D21pkw091747: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
delay=00:00:02, x
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 07:38:58PM -0600, Michael Geier wrote:
> Maybe some people are taking my recommendation a little to strongly.
>
> In answer to your points:
> [1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
> opinion, any list you belong to should be in a whitel
Maybe some people are taking my recommendation a little to strongly.
In answer to your points:
[1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
opinion, any list you belong to should be in a whitelist anyway).
[2] I frankly don't understand the point of that one...
[3
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Michael Geier wrote:
> The attached email slipped under the threshold.
>
> However, something caught my eye. Generally, the from: domain and the
> reply-to: domain don't match on spam.
>
> Maybe we could compare against that?
For the love of god, NOO!
It's bad enough t
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> We could add a negative
>
> header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
> describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
> score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
>
> Something like that?
Sounded g
In reality, it shouldn't really require any of those. It will compile
and link just find without any linked-in libs.
Which I guess answers the question how to fix it. I'll just remove the
" $(CFLDFLAGS) $(CFLIBS)"
from the end of the Makefile.PL rule for spamc.
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 15:05
On 12 February 2002, Erik van der Meulen said:
> Am I right in interpreting your answer '-lndbm is not required' that I
> can modify the Makefile so it does not inculde that particular option
> and build again? I am a little unsure in this field, have never coded a
> line in my life...
Hmmm, ever
You can do that yes. spamc pretty much requires almost nothing to link
against, and MakeMaker insists on jamming a bunch of things into the
linker. You can hand edit the Makefile after perl Makefile.PL, but a
probably better solution would be to find why MakeMaker on your machine
is trying to li
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> We could add a negative
>
> header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
> describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
> score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
>
> Something like that?
>
Your d
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:40:46PM +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 17:22:29 -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > On my system, -lndbm is not required, it seems. I think it has to do with
> > MakeMaker choosing what is needed (incorrectly?). However, libndbm.so is
> > lis
We could add a negative
header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
Something like that?
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 12:07, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I know this was mentioned a wh
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 17:22:29 -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On my system, -lndbm is not required, it seems. I think it has to do with
> MakeMaker choosing what is needed (incorrectly?). However, libndbm.so is
> listed as belonging to libc6-dev on potato, on packages.d.o.
Thanks a lot for you
I would hope/imagine that you could disable that as appropriate, no?
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Hamilton, Kent wrote:
> Not only that but my VP would kill me if I stripped MIME attachments out, we
> are engineering company and half our email is attachments.
>
> --
> Kent Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:04:14PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 05:48:54PM +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote:
> | Dear all - this is my first go at installing Spamassassin and I get
> | stuck in the 'make' procedure. It results in:
>
> | /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lndbm
>
> | I
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:37:05PM -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
> 2) the real name in "To" is the same as the address, but SA doesn't
> catch this because of the quoting
I get a LOT of "real" mail where the descriptive From part == from, so
classifying that as spam may be inappropriate.
This i
Someone noticed a spam today that SA should have caught, but did not.
Here are some of the headers:
From: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Desarrollamos su página Web
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:26:46 -0500
Note that
1) there's no real name in "
Not only that but my VP would kill me if I stripped MIME attachments out, we
are engineering company and half our email is attachments.
--
Kent Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manager - Systems Admin & Networking
Hunter Engineering Company
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [ma
I'm pretty much seeing the same symptoms that Marc described. It does appear
to be when it hits two at the same time that it hangs. I haven't proved that
100% to myself yet.
I'm not a C++ kinda guy but I do know a little. I might be able to help a
little. I was just trying to stick some debug lo
> > Well in my installation, I did in fact have to add -u root to get it to
> > work.
I guess you really need to understand how SA can run, and then undo the bits
that don't apply to you.
For instance, running SA via Qmail-Scanner is running it in "system-wide"
mode - and usually with the end-lo
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:39:44AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
| Cayce, I think what you're seeing in the logs is the process id, not the
| port number. Port number stays the same. But new processes are
| spawned, so the process id keeps going up.
Depends on which port you're talking about. The
I know this was mentioned a while ago, but I couldn't find it in the
archives...
Bascially, the problem is that Outlook Express 6 uses a different format for
Undisclosed Recipients. Here's the top of a message that got flagged:
From: "Removed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Fw: men vs women
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 05:48:54PM +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote:
| Dear all - this is my first go at installing Spamassassin and I get
| stuck in the 'make' procedure. It results in:
| /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lndbm
| I have tried to look around for this error and what it might be
| miss
FYI to you both -- I'm still interested in helping out. Kirk, if we can
pick up where we left off that'd be great. ktrace'ing a stuck spamc and
stuck spamd will probably let us know exactly what's going on.
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 10:10, Kirk Davis wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> I am the one who
Well
You could set up your own RWL (realtime whitehole list) DNS server, then
create a new rule:
header JASON_RWLeval:check_rbl('relay','your.dns.server.here')
score JASON_RWL -100
...or something
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 10:14, Jason wrote:
>
> Is there an easy way to add
Cayce, I think what you're seeing in the logs is the process id, not the
port number. Port number stays the same. But new processes are
spawned, so the process id keeps going up.
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 09:44, Cayce Will wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I noticed in my spamd logs that the port that sp
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Kirk Davis wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> I am the one who did up the 2.01 FreeBSD port. I hope to get the
> spamass-milter port done soon but I just arrive back from a weeks vacation
> so I will be playing catch-up over the new couple of days.
>
> This is the same proble
Is there an easy way to add existing approved networks into spamassasin
to get minus scores added to them.
I'm thinking a reverse of the RBL. All mail originating from
your list of IP's gets a minus score added. That way minor hits
will flow through but really spammy stuff could still get tagg
Hi Marc,
I am the one who did up the 2.01 FreeBSD port. I hope to get the
spamass-milter port done soon but I just arrive back from a weeks vacation
so I will be playing catch-up over the new couple of days.
This is the same problem I am seeing using the milter filter setup.
I w
Hello all,
I noticed in my spamd logs that the port that spamd/c connect on is
always incremented upward. Is this normal behavior? What happens
when a port number is hard coded for spamd and spamc? Do they start
to increment from there?
I'd just like to know what is supposed to happen. I wa
True, the current released version of Mdefang plays the most nicely with
SA1.5...there's some notes on making it work with 2.0/2.01 in the SA bug
database at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11 --
making an attempt at updating is on my when-I-get-around-to-it list,
and it looks l
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:58:19 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hamilton,
Kent") wrote:
>EXACTLY the same experience. Killing spamass-milter and restarting it and
>things start working again.
I tried killing the spamd and spamc processes, and restarting those,
but leaving spamass-milter alone. Again,
Problem is that according to www.milter.org, I believe that MIMEDefang
hasn't been upgraded yet to suport the new API for spamassassin :(
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Mark Roedel wrote:
>
> I've been using spamassassin on FreeBSD with MIMEDefang (another
> milter-based project) since Christmas with g
I've been using spamassassin on FreeBSD with MIMEDefang (another
milter-based project) since Christmas with great results. (And
MIMEDefang also allows me to strip out dangerous attachments, which has
been a major benefit...)
---
Mark Roedel | "Blessed is he who has learned to laugh
S
Dear all - this is my first go at installing Spamassassin and I get
stuck in the 'make' procedure. It results in:
souterrain:/home/erik/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.01# make
cc -Dbool=char -DHAS_BOOL -D_REENTRANT -DDEBIAN -I/usr/local/include
-O2 spamd/spamc.c \
-o spamd/spamc -L/usr/local/lib
but that would be an argument for personal whitelist (or even auto-whitelist
once it has been improved).
-Original Message-
From: rODbegbie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:21 AM
To: Michael Geier; SpamAssassin List
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] rule suggestion
Tha
Is anyone looking at integration with Distributed Checksum
Clearinghouse? I'm using it as an additional filter from procmail right
now but it would be nice to integrate the detection and reporting.
For anyone not familiar, DCC information is at
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ -- It is simi
I'm not denying that it's klugey, I'm just saying it works. I can tell
something is strange with my installation from people's questions but I
can't figure out how or where my installation went bad. This is how I
installed everything:
Downloaded images of Red Hat 7.1, burned them to disk, and i
That would fail for all those annoying effing mailing lists who set the
Reply-To address to be the list.
rOD.
--
"Marie Curie was Polish-born, but French-bred.
FRENCH BREAD!"
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Geier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sen
The attached email slipped under the threshold.
However, something caught my eye.
Generally, the from: domain and the reply-to: domain don't match on spam.
Maybe we could compare against that?
-Original Headers-
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from emailpdc.CLIENTMAIL ([207.2
> Well in my installation, I did in fact have to add -u root to get it to
> work.
Then your setup is flaky.
> It would not work otherwise. When I just ran spamc -f it failed, when I
> added spamc -f -u root it worked. I can't argue with results.
It probably has something to do with creating u
EXACTLY the same experience. Killing spamass-milter and restarting it and
things start working again.
--
Kent Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manager - Systems Admin & Networking
Hunter Engineering Company
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent:
Strange...I've been using spamassassin since 1.01 when it was a manual patch
option and I've never had to do that. With version 1.10 that has native
support, it just worked out of the box. Can you (if you haven't already)
detail the steps that you've done to install both Spamassassin and
Qmail-s
51 matches
Mail list logo
