Dear all at Spamassassin,
First, thank you very much for a beautiful piece of work!
Now the questions!
I'm running a website on a virtual (FreeBSD) server. As a result, I
have login privileges but not as root. Since the server providers
didn't show any interest in a public installation, I h
Preliminary question: Is there a searchable archive of this list? I hate
jumping in without looking for past threads, but visually scanning the
geocrawler archive is just not cutting it.
Now for the real discussion:
I just tried installing SpamAssassin from the CPAN shell. The test phase
fai
Oh, it may also have something to do with using "Header" instead of
"header" for the rule type.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 16:14, Craig Hughes wrote:
> More importantly though, you can't create rules in userprefs; you can
> only modify descriptions and scores, do whitelisting, and a few other
> thi
More importantly though, you can't create rules in userprefs; you can
only modify descriptions and scores, do whitelisting, and a few other
thing.
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 15:46, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 06:40:22PM -0500, Landy Roman wrote:
>
> I don't want to spend many time making the patch, unless it goes immediately
> into CVS, as keeping it sync with CVS for weeks/months is a nightmare...
> If I have to do the fork&sync way, i'll fork everything and redesign ruleset
> syntax to better fit my needs for the C version...
Rules tend
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:46:58 -0800
Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 06:40:22PM -0500, Landy Roman wrote:
> > Header TEST_FROM From =~ /adomainname/i
> > describe TEST_tandom this is a test rr
> > score TEST_FOR_SPAM 7.0
>
> The scond field needs to be the same
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 06:40:22PM -0500, Landy Roman wrote:
> Header TEST_FROM From =~ /adomainname/i
> describe TEST_tandom this is a test rr
> score TEST_FOR_SPAM 7.0
The scond field needs to be the same for all three. ie:
Header MY_TEST_FROM From =~ /adomainname/i
describe MY_TEST_FROM th
i tried adding this to my .spamassassin/user_pref hoping
it would tag mail from a domain as spam but it seem not to be working
any hints?
Header TEST_FROM From =~ /adomainname/i
describe TEST_tandom this is a test rr
score TEST_FOR_SPAM 7.0
___
Spam
Hi,
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:42, Arpi wrote:
> > when will it be implemented, or better: when will you accept such patch fo
> r
> > ruleset? (i cannot modify the perl code, as i don't know the perl languege
> > nor the spamassassin core enough, but i could help making this optimzation
> > to th
On 21 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 10:22, Arpi wrote:
[...]
>> body FOR_INSTANT_ACCESS /\sINSTANT\s+ACCESS.{0,20}\s+/i
>>
>> correct me if i'm wrong, i'm still newbie in regexp world :)
>
> I think
> body FOR_INSTANT_ACCESS /INSTANT ACCESS/i
> is fine b
Ok, so this thread got my to go read through man perlre in a little more
detail. I've found the following as a result:
PerMsgStatus.pm uses $& and $', which apparently will cause *all* regex
matching to be much slower program wide. I'll try to rewrite the one
line on which that occurs; we shoul
Heh, yeah. My syntax would make it seem that it would allow that. And
I agree that allowing that would be better. But allowing that would
mean more coding ;) I'll probably do it anyway...
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 14:20, Arpi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 21 February 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> > > I
This syntax makes the rule parse more complicated, given the way it
works now. Though it is a little nicer because it makes it clearer that
something like:
rawbody A/rule1/
and header A /rule2/
will not work as expected.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:40, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 21 February 200
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:42, Arpi wrote:
> when will it be implemented, or better: when will you accept such patch for
> ruleset? (i cannot modify the perl code, as i don't know the perl languege
> nor the spamassassin core enough, but i could help making this optimzation
> to the ruleset)
You ca
On 21 February 2002, Arpi said:
> anyway, i have a request:
> could you add a new rule type, for plain text matches?
> searching for a text string is always simpler and faster than for regexps,
> and many of your regexps are such strings (/some words/i) and there will be
> much more when start add
Hi,
> On 21 February 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> > I had been thinking about creating a "multiple-rule" format for rules,
> > where in order to match a rule, you would have to match a sequence of
> > regexes, eg:
> >
> > rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/
> > and rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /[
On 21 February 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> I had been thinking about creating a "multiple-rule" format for rules,
> where in order to match a rule, you would have to match a sequence of
> regexes, eg:
>
> rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/
> and rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]
Hi,
> I had been thinking about creating a "multiple-rule" format for rules,
> where in order to match a rule, you would have to match a sequence of
> regexes, eg:
>
> rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/
> and rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
>
> the "and"
I had been thinking about creating a "multiple-rule" format for rules,
where in order to match a rule, you would have to match a sequence of
regexes, eg:
rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/
and rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
the "and" prefix on a rule mean
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 10:22, Arpi wrote:
> 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).
>
> more on this...
>
> > FOR_INSTA
Yeah, I guess I should send myself a hotmail message and see how they've
changed headers...
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 07:20, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> > I was just debugging some (non-spamassassin related) mail problems so I
> > sent a message from a hotmail account to my real mail address. It was
Hi,
> > > rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY/[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
> > [^<] means "any character except '<'".
> anyway, it explains why is this regexp so slow :(
> it partially matches at every character position of text, and only at the
> end (_{30,}) turns out that bad match..
Slightly more accurately, ^ as the *first* character inside [] means
not. Later in the [] it means ^
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 10:42, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
>
> > rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY/[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
> >
> > could someone pleas
You have an out-of-date rules file somewhere -- the
A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WHITELIST rule thing is caused by the changes in AWL
stuff. Old rules files with new code will show that problem.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 05:28, Jason wrote:
>
> For some reason the Nigeria scam seems to be getting through...
>
Doh! Yes of course -- I forgot about adding info to the report. I'll
do that now.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 02:16, Michael Moncur wrote:
> I've just been toying with the new auto-whitelist and was convinced it wasn't
> working for a while because the spam reporting is a bit confusing. Case in
>
Hi,
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
>
> > rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY/[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
> >
> > could someone please explain what does [^<] matches ?
> > afaik ^ means beginning-of-line but it's strange in [] character array.
> > so, what does ^ mean there? begin-of
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
> rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY/[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
>
> could someone please explain what does [^<] matches ?
> afaik ^ means beginning-of-line but it's strange in [] character array.
> so, what does ^ mean there? begin-of-line or '^' char
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).
more on this...
> FOR_INSTANT_ACCESS:
> /(?:CLICK HERE|).{0,20}\s+INSTANT\s+ACCESS.{0,
> I was just debugging some (non-spamassassin related) mail problems so I
> sent a message from a hotmail account to my real mail address. It was
> tagged with FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD even though it was sent from hotmail.
> This is with the Spamassassin in Debian unstable.
FYI
This has been covered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yep, I've noticed it flagging a lot of e-mails from friends that have
legitimate hotmail accounts as well. That's on 2.0 on my Red Hat
Linux box.
Seth Bokelman
PC Support Specialist
College of Social & Behavioral Sciences
University of Northern Iowa
FYI,
I was just debugging some (non-spamassassin related) mail problems so I
sent a message from a hotmail account to my real mail address. It was
tagged with FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD even though it was sent from hotmail.
This is with the Spamassassin in Debian unstable.
--
We spent a lot of time
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > 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
> > > > inp
For some reason the Nigeria scam seems to be getting through...
--- Just a snip of what I'm seeing...
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL & URGENT
I am a member of the Federal Government of Nigeria
Contract Award and Monitoring Committee in the
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
---
thanks;
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:47:44 -0500
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> the
I've just been toying with the new auto-whitelist and was convinced it wasn't
working for a while because the spam reporting is a bit confusing. Case in
point, this report from a deliberately spammy email I sent myself:
X-Spam-Report: 6.624167 hits, 5 required;
* 1.0 -- Subject conta
On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> This system has a number of advantages over the simple counting method
> of the old AWL implementation:
>
> 1. Spammers before could just send you 3 "clean" messages and thereby
> get themselves permanently obtaining a -100 bonus. Now they would have
> to ke
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> 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
>
38 matches
Mail list logo
