On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:35:50PM -0500, Landy Roman wrote:
| nice article in LM about spamassassin, i hope the spammers don't
| read it
Doesn't make much difference. The only thing they can do is turn
their spam into not-spam, but then they wouldn't be spammers any more
:-).
| i am kind of c
Hi,
I've ran my C version through your really big spam collection at night, and
filtered out 'slow' messages. Then I've checked which regexps makes them so
slow (slow mean 5..25 secs/mail on p4 1.8ghz).
Most 'slow' mails have many (>1000) repeats of a single char
(X...XXX
--On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 17:34 -0500 Greg Ward
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have heard good things about
> postfix.
I haven't played much with exim but I've used postfix a lot and it's real
easy to setup.
-jlh
___
Spamassassin-talk m
+> ... would trigger false positives on
+> a@domain, b@domain, ..., k@domain
+> i.e., 11 (not 10) of the same domain would trigger this regardless of the
+> local parts. Well, the SUSPICIOUS_[CC_]RECIPS macros seemed good, so I
+> tweaked them ...
Tom> Coincidentally, I just sent fixes for the
At Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:16:56 -0800 John Beck wrote:
> ...
> would trigger false positives on
>
> a@domain, b@domain, ..., k@domain
>
> i.e., 11 (not 10) of the same domain would trigger this regardless of the
> local parts. Well, the SUSPICIOUS_[CC_]RECIPS macros seemed good, so I
> tweaked the
(I learned about this yesterday and have it going; very nice.)
Today I got a false positive which included among other things:
SPAM: Hit! (2.29 points) Cc: contains similar usernames at least 10 times
SPAM: Hit! (1.47 points) To: contains similar usernames at least 10 times
neither of which was
nice article in LM about spamassassin, i hope the spammers don't read it
i am kind of confused on custom spamassassin
if i want to add rules i would have to do them in user_prefs? do they
overright the default rules or just add to them? also, are the default
rules visible in any file?
___
On 20 February 2002, Mark Graves said:
> I have a RedHat Linux system that I use for DNS, Listserv, etc and was
> wondering if there was a HOWTO document about creating a store-forward
> mail system. That is, have my Linux system (Sendmail) receive all
> inbound SMTP traffic, parse it against Spa
I'm new to spamassassin and I've been trying to get my user prefs to load
from sql vice ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs. I've set up the database and the
required table via mysql. I've installed perl mod DBI and DBD mysql, added
the required lines to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf but I still can't g
I've tried the anti-spam software that was developed for my WatchGuard Firebox II, and
was very unimpressed. After reading about Spam Assassin, I'm anxious to try it out.
HOWEVER, our mail server is Novell's GroupWise.
I have a RedHat Linux system that I use for DNS, Listserv, etc and was won
Charlie, I think some of the DB formats pre-allocate space in their
datafiles -- is it possible they just didn't zero the bytes out or
something? What happens when you run tools/check_whitelist?
C
on 2/20/02 11:25 AM, Charlie Watts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wro
Yeah, looks like I didn't check in fast enough ;) You can either wait till
later, or do a checkout from CVS.
C
on 2/20/02 7:22 AM, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> show-stopper bugfixes. Please get the latest stuff from CVS (or wait
>> till after ~1am PST and get th
The spam phrases stuff is calculated statistically based on a largish corpus
of spam and nonspam emails (close to 100,000 messages all together, about
half of each). You can find (slightly) more details in the wordfreqs
directory in CVS -- basically there's a batch run which counts the frequency
I just noticed that sample-nonspam.txt from SA distro is in razor now. Doh!
C
on 2/20/02 3:39 AM, Nigel Metheringham at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 10:46, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm actually playing with Razor again. I
On 20 February 2002, Charlie Watts said:
> However, spamd just died on me for the first time in months.
>
> I've restarted it without the -a flag; I'll let this run a few days, and
> then try again with -a (and -D).
>
> Looking at the auto-whitelist.db file, it's broken ... here's a snippet
> fr
On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, it's done. That was the last thing on the list to get done before a
> 2.1 release, so now I think I'll go ahead and release in a day or two
> (after people have a chance to notice that the new stuff is broken).
I updated after getting your message yeste
In case anybody's keeping score, MIMEDefang, beginning with v2.6beta1
released yesterday, should now play nicely with SA 2.x's NoMailAudit.
(Changes are based on the suggestions in
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11 ...thanks for the
pointers, Craig!)
---
Mark Roedel
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-imple
Hello, The setup I used was for spamassassin was easier to setup but
will not scale for more than a medium sized business:
in /etc/postfix/aliases setup the email like so:
user: "| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P -F1 >/path/to/local/mailbox"
user1: "| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P -F0 | /usr/sbin/sendmail
> show-stopper bugfixes. Please get the latest stuff from CVS (or wait
> till after ~1am PST and get the 2.1 tarball from the website) and try it
> out over the next few days. I've re-instated the "-a" flag in the spamd
> startup scripts, but make sure you're using it, and let me know how it's
>
Hello
I am running SpamAssassin as a milter and am
very pleased indeed.
Can someone give me a brief explaination of the
40_spam_phrases.cf contents? For example, as in
"spamphrase 29530 seventh heaven" what are the
scores in the second column and how are they
determined? Is it common to add you
> Are they still not doing that?
> Wow, I'm surprised. A system like that
> really needs good vetting.
What "they" (Vilpul) are still doing is implementing a sophisticated
system with some details obfuscated to make it more difficult for people
to game the system, and not doing a whole lot of pub
> "MGF" == Marc G Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGF> Morning all ...
MGF>I think I've set everythign up right ... fixed the Mail::Audit
MGF> issue as recommended on the list, manually run /usr/local/bin/spamproxyd
MGF> from the command line, then change main.cf to add:
I was abou
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> > more than a curiosity - for example
Hi,
> > Razor's trivial to re-do in C. Simply use DNS - allow people to lookup
> > md5sum.razor.org (or whatever the domain is to be) and map the Razor db to
> > a DNS db. Use DJBDNS, it's trivial. Really incredibly trivial.
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
>
On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> more than a curiosity - for example at present it appears all BUGTRAQ
> postings are being entered into the r
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 10:46, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-implementing in a C
> re-write, but the Rhyolite.com DCC
I noticed that VERY_SUSP_RECIPS and VERY_SUSP_CC_RECIPS were failing to
match in some cases they should, and matching in some they shouldn't.
/\b([a-z][a-z])[^@]{0,20}(@[-a-z0-9_\.]{0,30}).{0,30}?(?:\1[^@]*\2.{0,20}?){9,}/is
- Sequences such as "[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTE
29 matches
Mail list logo
