On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Monday 11 March 2002 06:46 pm, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
>> Did you play it? (or at least look at it more closely)
>
> Ah. It's file type *is* "MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows",
> so I guess it's a virus. And the raw text of the message has
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 09:34:04PM -0700, Michael Moncur wrote:
> > Spammers are required by law in at least some major jurisdictions to
> > include "ADV" and/or "ADLT" in the subject lines of their spam. SA
> > should detect this with a very high score. I just got an "ADV ADLT"
> > message (no
On Monday 11 March 2002 06:46 pm, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Did you play it? (or at least look at it more closely)
Ah. It's file type *is* "MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows", so I
guess it's a virus. And the raw text of the message has:
Content-Type: audio/x-wav;
name=speedte
On Monday 11 March 2002 08:24 pm, Michael Moncur wrote:
> I think that would be a great addition to SA, although I see more virus
> emails formatted like that than actual spam. I'm trying the following in my
> custom rules file:
>
> rawbody HTML_FRAMES / describe HTML_FRAMES HTML with an embed
Daniel Pittman wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>>>I just noticed that CommuniGate has its own test (COMMUNIGATE) but it
>>>isn't listed in the RATWARE test. This is of interest because the
>>>RATWARE test checks ALL headers, where COMMUNIGATE is a body test. It
>>>should be l
On 3/11/02 9:29 PM, "Forrest Cahoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03/11/2002 20:30:17, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
> (Re: "spam" rules with negative weights)
>
>> Apparently these rules are either no longer significant spam indicators or,
>> in extreme cases, have become non-spam indicators.
>
On 03/11/2002 20:30:17, Michael Moncur wrote:
(Re: "spam" rules with negative weights)
> Apparently these rules are either no longer significant spam indicators or,
> in extreme cases, have become non-spam indicators.
The mind boggles. How could the presence of "$$$" carry any weight
_against_
(My ISP was unable to help, but he's used SpamAssassin for maybe a day more
than I have, and I'm brand new.)
I have not been able, from the documentation, to figure out how to
personalize my setup. The problems I'm currently chewing on are:
I made the mistake of editing my "auto-whitelist.db"
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Forrest Cahoon wrote:
> I just started using SpamAssassin, and it seems very effective.
>
> I have noticed that some of the rules which would logically seem to
> indicate that a message *is* spam have negative weightings, e.g.:
Others already explained that the GA develops t
> Spammers are required by law in at least some major jurisdictions to
> include "ADV" and/or "ADLT" in the subject lines of their spam. SA
> should detect this with a very high score. I just got an "ADV ADLT"
> message (no colon following, but I don't think that's required) that
> passed by the
> How were these weightings arrived at? Shouldn't they be positive?
The scores were assigned by the GA (genetic algorithm) that determines the
effectiveness of rules based on a large group of spam and non-spam messages.
Apparently these rules are either no longer significant spam indicators or,
> Did you play it? (or at least look at it more closely) Is it really a
> sound file? Some viruses lately are wandering around with different
> filenames and content-types. foo.exe and audio/wav, that sort of thing.
>
> (I'll bet that /http://www.starlingtech.com/
"Research is the process of going
Hello, everyone.
I just started using SpamAssassin, and it seems very effective.
I have noticed that some of the rules which would logically seem to
indicate that a message *is* spam have negative weightings, e.g.:
body Contains word 'profits' in all-caps PROFITS-0.162
bod
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> I have been unable to get spamd to log any messages to syslog "mail"
> facility. I have even switched it to "local0" and still no luck. The
> odd thing is that spamd does send all syslog messages to the console.
> Here is the line that
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> cid:V34tfyBO41605h49r height=0 width=0>
>
>
> Since "V34tfyBO41605h49r" is the sound file, a mail reader with better HTML
> rendering would have created a frame with the sound file as it's source, thus
> automatically playing it. No need to click an a
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> I have this in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file:
>
> report_header 1
> use_terse_report 1
>
> They're not working. What am I doing wrong?
You probably have another preference file being found and used.
Check /etc/spamassassin, ~/.spamass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have this in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file:
report_header 1
use_terse_report1
They're not working. What am I doing wrong?
Mike Loiterman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 7.0.4
Comment: Messag
There's a summary of anti-spam laws of various states in the US at
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/summary.html
The ones that require some identifying text in the Subject line are
(Where only an "Adult" version is mentioned the law only applies to porn
spam):
California, Colorado, Tennessee: "
I just got a spam that slipped through SA, which is only a sound file; since
you can't find spammish words and phrases in a sound file, it'll get past any
filters that there might be.
The same spam had another intersting technique, like thus (after decoidng
quoted-printable):
cid:V34tfyBO4160
On Monday 11 March 2002 03:52 pm, William R Ward wrote:
> Spammers are required by law in at least some major jurisdictions to
> include "ADV" and/or "ADLT" in the subject lines of their spam. SA
> should detect this with a very high score.
SA does match "ADV:" in the subject, but not without th
Spammers are required by law in at least some major jurisdictions to
include "ADV" and/or "ADLT" in the subject lines of their spam. SA
should detect this with a very high score. I just got an "ADV ADLT"
message (no colon following, but I don't think that's required) that
passed by the filter.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>> I just noticed that CommuniGate has its own test (COMMUNIGATE) but it
>> isn't listed in the RATWARE test. This is of interest because the
>> RATWARE test checks ALL headers, where COMMUNIGATE is a body test. It
>> should be listed in RATWARE.
>
> The
1. Suggest upgrading to SA 2.11
2. Switch to using Mail::SpamAssassin::NoMailAudit instead of
MyMailAudit.
C
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 15:09, Emily H. Yau wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm trying to set up Spamassassin with Mailscanner for the first time. I receive
>the following error when SpamAssasin is ca
Hi.
I'm trying to set up Spamassassin with Mailscanner for the first time. I receive the
following error when SpamAssasin is called by MailScanner:
Can't locate object method "head" via package "Mail::SpamAssassin::MyMailAudit" at
/usr/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/Audit.pm line 791.
786: # --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trying to set up aliases to spamassassin -W and spamassassin -R but
they don't seem to work. I get this error.
- - - - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - "|
/usr/bin/spamassassin -W"
(reason: internal software error)
I have been unable to get spamd to log any messages to syslog "mail"
facility. I have even switched it to "local0" and still no luck. The odd
thing is that spamd does send all syslog messages to the console. Here is
the line that I used for syslog.conf:
local0.info /var/log/spamd.log
spa
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 12:27, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
> > I just noticed that CommuniGate has its own test (COMMUNIGATE) but it
> > isn't listed in the RATWARE test. This is of interest because the
> > RATWARE test checks ALL headers, where COMMUNIGATE is a body test. It
> > should be listed in RA
Aha! I knew I was including that header for a reason!
Brilliant Michael, thanks.
C
On 3/11/02 9:24 AM, "Michael Moncur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a cute idea for those of us who admit to using Outlook. Inspired by the
> X-message-flag headers that certain people put in their mail to
On 09 March 2002, Kerry Nice said:
> Maybe SA needs to come up with a concept of a profile for a user or a
> company. This would make the installation more involved, but ultimately
> more useful and accurate. Certain rules like your attribution line or
> my customized subject could have local
Hi,
I've written twice about needing some help with the whitelist stuff, but
no one has responded?
Can someone please help me out?
Thanks
Ricardo
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spama
> I just noticed that CommuniGate has its own test (COMMUNIGATE) but it
> isn't listed in the RATWARE test. This is of interest because the
> RATWARE test checks ALL headers, where COMMUNIGATE is a body test. It
> should be listed in RATWARE.
The COMMUNIGATE rule is also scored negatively by the
Here's a cute idea for those of us who admit to using Outlook. Inspired by the
X-message-flag headers that certain people put in their mail to annoy Outlook
users, I added the following procmail recipe after the message has been piped
through SpamAssassin and before the delivery recipe:
:0fw
* ^X
On 09 March 2002, Kerry Nice said:
> #this one will only work for me, but if it there, it
> is 100% GUARANTEED to be spam
> #not sure how to make a general case for this
> header KERRYSUBJECT Subject =~ /kerry_nice/
> describe KERRYSUBJECT Personalized subject for
> Kerry based on email
I just noticed that CommuniGate has its own test (COMMUNIGATE) but it
isn't listed in the RATWARE test. This is of interest because the
RATWARE test checks ALL headers, where COMMUNIGATE is a body test. It
should be listed in RATWARE.
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pi
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>>I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
>>least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>>
>>/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>>
>>That need
On 3/11/02 4:53 AM, "Michael Moncur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> I would suggest that we be extremely careful about checks that get given
>> a score over 5. Part of the beauty of SpamAssassin (and heuristics in
>> general) is that usually a hit just contributes to the ove
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> > least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z
On 06 March 2002, Joey Hess said:
> All in good fun, I suppose. :-) I have a signature that scores about 30
> points in spamassassin, but this is ridiculous.
Very cute. You probably should have gzip'ed the message and attached
that; I don't think SA can see through .gz (yet!).
Was that gem manu
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>Wouldn't an easier fix be:
>
>/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
Interesting. [^a-z] includes [A-Z]. It also matches a zero-length
string. How about
/^(?:[A-Z]|[^A-Za-z])+$/
???
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
Faisal Jawdat wrote:
> I had this question myself when first trying
> SA, but wound up bending the ear of a friendly
> sysadmin. Can we make this a FAQ or get it
> added to the documentation?
>
>
It *is* in the documentation -- in the README file.
--
http://www.pri
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That needs testing though to make su
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That needs testing though to make sure it doesn't backtrack
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't an easier fix be:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That's just way too simple, Matt. Let's try for something more
> complicated. :-)
>
> But it doesn't have the "must have at least XX charac
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't an easier fix be:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
That's just way too simple, Matt. Let's try for something more
complicated. :-)
But it doesn't have the "must have at least XX characters" element that
the other test has. Does that matter? I'm no
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I would suggest that we be extremely careful about checks that get given
> a score over 5. Part of the beauty of SpamAssassin (and heuristics in
> general) is that usually a hit just contributes to the overall score, but
> doesn't necessarily tip things over. Having said tha
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>s/b
> >>
> >> return $subject cmp uc($subject);
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >'s OK, I'll share my prize with you. Everybody goes home a winner here at
> >"The Regex is Right!"
> >
>
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On 3/8/02 12:37 PM, "Timothy Demarest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --On Friday, March 08, 2002 12:06 PM -0800 Craig Hughes
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Apart from reservation number (1) above, I'd be very happy to have SA Do
> >> The Right
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Greetings! I'm just getting started with SA, so please pardon
> any FAQs. I *did* search the archives first, though.. no joy.
>
> I've installed SA 2.01 and Mail::Audit 2.1 on an RH 5.2 system
> running Perl 5.6.1. Mail::Internet is from Mail
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 08 March 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> > I think for this setup, where most of the addresses are not mapped in
> > /etc/passwd (and so have no ~ directory), you should look at storing the
> > configurations in a database and use the SQL stuff.
>
> Blech. I
In Mail::SpamAssassin version 2.01, with Mail::Audit version 2.0, there is
a buglet in the Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus::get_full_message_as_text
routine.
It doesn't give a blank line between the headers and the body.
Since I realized this only after swearing at my test code for spam-check
As a new comer to Spamassassin, I have to say that while I like the
software, I am not too keen on the installation process.
I like to keep the OS as standard and clean as possible and keep
additional software in well defined areas that suit me. I am not
keen on software that gropes around the sy
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Yes, that might be a little high
I would suggest that we be extremely careful about checks that get given
a score over 5. Part of the beauty of SpamAssassin (and heuristics in
general) is that usually a hit just contributes to the overall score, but
does
52 matches
Mail list logo
