When I run a raw body eval test on the attached email, the text array I get
consists of only one line of binary; I have now clue as to why.
I'm using the latest CVS version of SA.
--
Visit http://dmoz.org, the world's | Give a man a match, and he'll be warm
largest human edited web directory
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 05:28 pm, Matthew Cline wrote:
> I found that this line of my patch to fix the "MIME null block" problem was
> causing an infinite loop sometimes:
>
> my $boundary = "--$1";
Ugh, that wasn't the only problem. If, for some reason, the boundary pattern
doesn't ma
well, toad.com just made it into my access file for denied domains (along
with Korea and China Telecom)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob
> McMillin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:14 PM
> To: SAtalk
> Subject: [SAtalk] [Fwd:
I'm busy for a few days in a legal deposition. Should be back to some kind
of visibility this weekend.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Via interesting-people... IMHO Gilmore has, by announcing his intention
of maintaining an open relay as a moral stand, created a public nuisance.
Any chance of adding a test for toad.com as an SA test? :-)
===
From: Brian McWilliams < @pc-radio.com="">
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:2
after commenting that line out, do you have to do anything to make the change
effective? I commented it out and ran 'make test' (from my Mail-Spamassassin
dir which I installed Spamassassin from) and still had error's reported. Maybe
this means nothing. How do I tell if the change has been e
Two things:
1) You didn't implement the whitelist/blacklist outright accept/reject
concept yet. Bug #62 mentions that in some of Craig's notes, so if that's
still of interest then someone should create a new "bug" for it.
2) Spamd needs an update to reflect the short-circuiting. Attached is a
p
I should probably whitelist the spamcop mails, but it seems like a score of
5.8 for /Mortgage rates/i is a bit excessive.
- Forwarded message from SpamCop AutoResponder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:15:00 -0500 (EST)
From: SpamCop AutoResponder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [
After Craig pointed out his post to the list re: patching the Dns.pm
file, I finally got spamd and razor 1.20 working successfully (I think).
My question is whether the same line should be commented out of
Reporter.pm?
[root@hogtie SpamAssassin]# grep 'local ($/)' ./*
./Dns.pm:#local ($/);
My copy of SA had this to say about it:
> SPAM: Content analysis details: (217.2 hits, 5 required)
Jesus!
--
Visit http://dmoz.org, the world's | Give a man a match, and he'll be warm
largest human edited web directory. | for a minute, but set him on fire, and
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 March 2002 05:01 pm, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> Er, does anyone out there know that this is actually a usable source
>> of information? Can anyone say that it's a success story for them?
>
> 17 out of 87 spams detected hit the osirusoft
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 08:49:28PM -0500, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> Matthew Cline spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into:
> > I'm seeing a bunch of messages from places like
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], which are
> > getting sent through SAtalk (since they end with the
I'm having trouble applying this patch (and the one that was posted for
NoMailAudit.pm for that matter). In both cases, I use:
patch -pX -b --verbose <{patch_name}
(X varies of course depending on the patch)
and in each case the output is like below, what am I doing wrong?
Hmm... Looks like
Matthew Cline spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into:
> I'm seeing a bunch of messages from places like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], which are
> getting sent through SAtalk (since they end with the SAtalk signature), and
> which are filtered through some SA I'm not using
All in good fun, I suppose. :-) I have a signature that scores about 30
points in spamassassin, but this is ridiculous.
Hmm, I wonder how many of you won't even see this message.
- Forwarded message from the Troll under the Belltown Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
From: the Troll under th
I found that this line of my patch to fix the "MIME null block" problem was
causing an infinite loop sometimes:
my $boundary = "--$1";
Since it's used in a regular expression, if the boundrary string has regexp
meta-characters in it, things will get messed up. Specifically, if the
bo
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 05:01 pm, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Er, does anyone out there know that this is actually a usable source of
> information? Can anyone say that it's a success story for them?
17 out of 87 spams detected hit the osirusoft rule, and I've seen no false
positives because of
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:01:40PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Douglas J. Hunley wrote:
> > As you can see from the email attached, this mail got flagged simply
> > because of 'received via relay' and 'confirmed spam source' I received
> > the mail from a mailing list. I do
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Douglas J. Hunley wrote:
> As you can see from the email attached, this mail got flagged simply
> because of 'received via relay' and 'confirmed spam source' I received
> the mail from a mailing list. I do *not* want to add the mailing list
> address to my whitelist as this mai
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:30:55PM +0100, Cyril Chaboisseau wrote:
> hi,
>
> I just setup a mail relay using postfix w/ spamassassin 2.1 via
> spamproxyd
> (I couldn't use procmail because the transport map takes precedence over
> mailbox_command=/usr/bin/procmail)
>
>
> but I still have some q
This particular message got flagged as spam by SA... and it's coming from
the list.
Is that expected behavior? (I'm NOT running the latest 2.11)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:13:00 -0500
From: Douglas J Hunley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
I'm seeing a bunch of messages from places like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and [EMAIL PROTECTED], which are getting sent through SAtalk
(since they end with the SAtalk signature), and which are filtered through
some SA I'm not using, since their subjects are being rewritten, which I've
turned off. I'v
I get a lot of Evite messages getting marked as spam.
I'm wondering if there's some kind of whitelist based
on received headers or some such (since Evite sends
mail "from" the person who sent the invite).
-faisal
_
hi,
I just setup a mail relay using postfix w/ spamassassin 2.1 via
spamproxyd
(I couldn't use procmail because the transport map takes precedence over
mailbox_command=/usr/bin/procmail)
but I still have some questions :
- how spamproxyd is supposed to start ? (/etc/init.d/... ? manually ?)
->
I noticed that the accept() method of NoMailAudit wasn't allowing you
to specify WHERE to accept mail to (somehow this disappeared)... I fixed
this an have included a patch, quite easy fix as well.
Please cc: me on any replies as I am not currently subscribed to the
list.
--
Kamil Kisiel <[EMAI
Douglas J Hunley spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into:
> this email stopped on:
> empty reply-to
> to repeats local-part as real name
> received via relay
>
> anyone else seeing false-positives more often with 2.11?
the mail is attached this time
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunle
this email stopped on:
empty reply-to
to repeats local-part as real name
received via relay
anyone else seeing false-positives more often with 2.11?
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org
and http://jobs.li
this mail choked on:
relay in osirusoft.com
sender is confirmed spam source
how to tell sa to leave it alone?
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org
and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org
If I throw a stick, will yo
The problem is not SA -- It's that the relay for the mailing list is
currently in a blacklist. Either switch off blacklist checking for
OSIRUSOFT or whitelist the mailing list.
rOD.
--
"Fast! Fast! Faster! Bring the beef, you bastard,"
cries Paula Abdul, "and don't forget the pasta!"
-
this one caught on:
possibly forged received header
no real name in from
from ends in numbers
body has line > 199 chars
forged yahoo
how in the world would I tell sa that this is ok?
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-s
this mail got caught on
empty reply-to
no mx for from domain
seems a little steep for those two checks. is new sa a little too sensitive?
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org
and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org
this one caught on
subject contains ?
received yahoo header
received from known spam-harbour
recevied from relay in relays.osirusoft
how to make sa ignore this email?
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org
a
As you can see from the email attached, this mail got flagged simply because
of 'received via relay' and 'confirmed spam source'
I received the mail from a mailing list. I do *not* want to add the mailing
list address to my whitelist as this mail would have been fine before
upgrading to 2.11
-
As you can see from the email attached, this mail got flagged simply because
of 'received via relay' and 'confirmed spam source'
I received the mail from a mailing list. I do *not* want to add the mailing
list address to my whitelist as this mail would have been fine before
upgrading to 2.11
-
I seem to be geting more false positives with 2.11 than 2.01.
The latest was triggered by someone sending the output from
a gene comparison program. The body contains gene sequences
which get reported as whole lines of shouting, plus this one had
an empty subject. The latest rules seem to pick up
I was wondering if you could enlighten us on your hardware/software
setup. I understand that some of the particulars could be under wraps
based on restrictions from your employerer. I'm very curious as to what
it takes to handle virus checking and spam processing of 7M messages per
day.
Thanks,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What the heck, I changed it to /HUNZA/i
Shouldn't this at least be /\bHUNZA\b/i?
--
Shields.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net
Thanks...!
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 March 2002 06:11 pm, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a message from a mailing list which spamassassin flags as spam,
> > however it is not.
> >
> > How can I handle that?
>
> If the mailing list puts its email
Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > Changed to /HUNZA.{1,80}BREAD/i, Thanks.
>
> What the heck, I changed it to /HUNZA/i
I'm sure that will make some of the 20 thousand hits google finds for
Hunza happy (Hunza travel services, the Hunza royal family(!), Hunza
Graphics, Hunza Paki
Check out this one. A few well placed .'s and
tt only scored a 2.6 on my system:
Received: from sol.tantiatech.com
([10.10.1.22]) by
notes.tantiatech.com (Lotus Domino Release
5.0.8) with ESMTP id
2002030609422100:5738 ;
Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:42:21 -0700Received
I think this is interesting because it points at a place where the
TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL test may be commonly triggered (besides dman's
username) -- mail to mailing lists.
This may even be likely, if the user uses some kind of address book, and puts
in the list's name in the name field, and if the
Hallo,
I have just upgraded to Spamassassin 2.11 from 2.01.
I am seeing a number of attachments being blocked as :-
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or
>
>It's not exactly perfect, because it means we have to adjust spamd and
>spamassassin scripts to optionally use a different Conf class, but that's
>a trivial patch also. Want me to apply this and fix up spamd/spamassassin
>too?
This may well be the best option. (it's certainly a lower cost opt
[Richard Sonnen]
> It might be useful to set up spamc and spamd so that you could
> specify alternate config files more easily. i.e.
>
> spamc --cf /path/to/system/conf/dir --rf /path/to/user/rules
[Craig Hughes]
> Which entirely defeats the purpose of spamd -- to pre-compile the
> rules.
That
It's apparently due to a bug in Razor that was fixed in 1.20 which broke a
workaround in SA. To fix, you need to apply the following patch to SA 2.11.
I'd advise against getting the CVS version right now unless you like living very
much on the edge. A couple experimental changes went in in the l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 6. March 2002 15:56 schrieb Jeff Bacon:
> I have installed Spamassassin and Razor::Client but Spamassassin says it
> cannot find Razor::Client. If I put "use Razor::Client;" in a perl
http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/11679
I will certainly do the checking -- I would be a lot more wary though if the
merging were the other way around -- I think pretty well all of the body checks
if matched in the subject would be signs of spam. The converse is not
necessarily the case. Also, we're not removing any of the subject che
I have installed Spamassassin and Razor::Client but Spamassassin says it
cannot find Razor::Client. If I put "use Razor::Client;" in a perl
script or compiles/runs fine so it is in my @INC. What do I need to do
to have Spamassassin find it?
Jeff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I got a false positive today with one of those annoying
confidentiality disclaimers at the bottom. In the text of that
disclaimer was a match for EXCUSE_16, which scored 1.6 points, enough
to put it over. Since I think EXCUSE_!^ is still a valid expression
in
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > On 5 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Matt, take a look at bugzilla #62 -- there is more discussion of
> >> exactly this there. If you re-order the rules, then the only problem
> >> with short-c
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
[...]
>> Matt, take a look at bugzilla #62 -- there is more discussion of
>> exactly this there. If you re-order the rules, then the only problem
>> with short-circuit scoring is razor submission. If "-L" is used
>> th
On 5 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 09:35, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote:
> >
> > > The question is: why do I need to run all tests if I'm running spamassassin with
>-L flag?
>
> > > Again, sorry if this topic was beaten to death bef
I"m running spamd on OpenBSD 2.9 without any problems for about 3 weeks now.
Lars Hansson
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 01:40 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
>
> I'll apply this patch if there are no objections:
>
> diff -u -r1.79 PerMsgStatus.pm
> --- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm 5 Mar 2002 17:44:51 -00
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > If you did that, then the LINE_OF_YELLING rule will get invoked whenever the
> > SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is invoked.
>
> No, because it'll be:
>
> Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST!!!
>
> Which contains enough lower case letters to fail the test, I think.
One is enough.
C
___
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Changed to /HUNZA.{1,80}BREAD/i, Thanks.
What the heck, I changed it to /HUNZA/i
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Because I need to get nonspam.log submissions from a variety of contributors,
I'm holding off on rescoring until we've made a bunch of changes for the next
release. We've already got about 5-10 rule changes in CVS, with a lot more in
bugzilla not-yet-done. Once we're getting pretty close to r
I think "BODY" is concise enough; beside most users probably don't know what
that means anyway.
C
Matthew Cline wrote:
> Also, if the hits threshold is passed, then SA report has "BODY:" put before
> the rule description, but now it would be "BODY OR SUBJECT:"
__
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 March 2002 01:40 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
>
> If you did that, then the LINE_OF_YELLING rule will get invoked whenever the
> SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is invoked.
No, b
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Richard Sonnen wrote:
> An off-list discussion of the SA config process brought up an
> unrelated good idea that I'm passing along:
>
> It might be useful to set up spamc and spamd so that you could
> specify alternate config files more easily. i.e.
>
> spamc --cf /path/to/sy
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> It seems that part of the reason that the HUNZA_DIET_BREAD doesn't seem to
> be doing anything is that they've changed their message around so the rule
> doesn't match any more.
>
> Here's part of the message that was received a couple weeks ago:
>
> ---
Well, there's the signal handling problems in spamd, and I think there was a
library linking problem at some point. Anyway, I'll do 'make test' on both
linux and OSX now that I can before committing major changes.
C
Kelsey Cummings wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:16:46 -0800
> From: Kelsey
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 01:40 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
Also, if the hits threshold is passed, then SA report has "BODY:" put before
the rule description, but now it would be "BODY OR SUBJECT:"
... But I guess that
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 March 2002 01:40 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
>
> If you did that, then the LINE_OF_YELLING rule will get invoked whenever the
> SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is invoked. I ass
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Richard Sonnen wrote:
> I've got an idea for making the SpamAssassin configuration process
> more flexible, and I'd love to hear your suggestions and comments
> before I jump in and make a mess of the code ;-)
>
> I'm in the process of deploying SpamAssassin on a distributed m
Matt Sergeant writes:
> What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
> I'll apply this patch if there are no objections:
That sounds perfect - that way body rules will always count for subjects too,
but subject rules (which would have a higher score, typically) won'
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 01:40 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> What I suggest is that the body stripping code adds the subject header in.
If you did that, then the LINE_OF_YELLING rule will get invoked whenever the
SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is invoked. I assume that there should be two lots-of-caps
rules, o
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Kelsey Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:14:18AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > I'm not sure how Vipul is going to do this (I don't follow the Razor list
> > since Razor is so unreliable that we don't use it). I spent a week
> > investigating Nilsimsa, even wrote a
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:28:20AM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> > There's some body tests that would also work for the subject, like the
> > CASHCASHCASH test, and I've seen some spam were the tests didn't match the
> > body but would have matched the s
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:41:33PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I finally managed to get perl working right on my fiancee's OSX machine, so now
> I can try and help with the various BSD complaints and stuff.
I've been running spamc/spamd on my personal BSD 4.5 boxes for quite a while
now, and h
70 matches
Mail list logo
