Here's my file of rules for stock-market spam. I tried to avoid anything that
would be used in "normal" mail, but people who subscribe to stock reports could
get false positives. I used a bunch of low-scoring rules rather than fewer
high-scoring rules to minimize the chance of this.
Most of the r
I've made a couple of files of custom rules that could be dropped in to
anyone's /usr/local/share/spamassassin directory and are already dropped into
mine. These could be included in a contributed rules area on the SA website or
the distribution.
Someone also might want to consider these rules fo
Gcc 3.0.4:
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
Thread model: single
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob
Plankers
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:34 PM
To: Kenneth Garreau Jr.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SA-milter on AI
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>I am using SA 2.11 and sometimes see messages that are messed up - all of
>the headers appear in the body of the message and the From: and To: headers
>are empty. This has happened very infrequently but I wonder if anyone else
>is seeing this on occasion? Or
On Thursday 14 March 2002 08:07 pm, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am writting a small script that will send email to my users.
>
> I want the email message not to be checked by SA.
>
> I am wondering if there is any way to do so. I am using
> procmail/spamc/spamd.
There is no way to do this,
Hi,
I am writting a small script that will send email to my users.
I want the email message not to be checked by SA.
I am wondering if there is any way to do so. I am using
procmail/spamc/spamd.
TIA
Olivier
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL
cd /usr/ports/databases/gdbm
make all install
:)
> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Curtis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] spamc
>
>
>
> I am trying to get SA setup on a Freebsd system and have so far gott
I am trying to get SA setup on a Freebsd system and have so far gotten
spamd up and running and using the correct config files.
However now I am having a problem with spamc. I get the error:
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libgdbm.so.2" not found
My problem is that I have very little
>Of those, the only one that has /any/ chance of seeing more than limited
>usage is the Verisign one, simply because they happen to fund and run
>one of the root servers.[1]
I think there is something running in Singapore of HongKong. Non IETF
of course.
Olivier
-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
> Were these line breaks there or did you add them when
sending the> message?>> -jim>
Here are the headers again in HTML so that
you don't get the line breaks. Also, all headers and first part of body
are included:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Return-Path:
> I am using qmail+vpopmail+maildrop to Maildirs. Like I said it does not
> happen often but I have seen it occasionally. Here are some of the headers
> from the broken message:
You should give us all headers, if possible
> X-INTM-Message-Id:
> sp-lists.com>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 req
> Might conceivably be a locking problem. How are you delivering
> messages, and to what sort of message store (mbox, maildir, etc.)?
>
> Greg
> --
I am using qmail+vpopmail+maildrop to Maildirs. Like I said it does not
happen often but I have seen it occasionally. Here are some of the
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> This isn't a legal DNS name, though. It would seem reasonable to
>> match it but, er, are you /really/ getting 8-bit characters in the
>> headers?
>
> Well there is the native language DNS project that has started to
> implement,
I imagine that the
On 14 March 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson said:
> I am using SA 2.11 and sometimes see messages that are messed up - all of
> the headers appear in the body of the message and the From: and To: headers
> are empty. This has happened very infrequently but I wonder if anyone else
> is seeing t
"CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am using SA 2.11 and sometimes see messages that are messed up - all of
> the headers appear in the body of the message and the From: and To: headers
> are empty. This has happened very infrequently but I wonder if anyone else
> is s
I am using SA 2.11 and sometimes see messages that are messed up - all of
the headers appear in the body of the message and the From: and To: headers
are empty. This has happened very infrequently but I wonder if anyone else
is seeing this on occasion? Or is this a known problem with 2.11? It s
Kenneth,
What compiler are you using?
...Bob
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Kenneth Garreau Jr. wrote:
> Has anyone here been able to compile SA-milter on AIX? I'm riddled with
> a billion compile errors, including the following:
>
> c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -O2 -Wall -c spamass-milter.cpp
I've installed Razor and Spamassassin on a box. If I do not have a .razor.lst
file already created, the Razor check goes fine:
debug: Razor is available
debug: Razor Agents 1.20, protocol version 2.
debug: Discovering closest server in the razor.vipul.net zone
debug: Sorted (closest first) list
On 13 Mar 2002 at 22:29, Smith, Rick wrote:
>
> Jim -
>
> Have you gotten any response to your email (attached below for
> reference) ? I'm interested in BOTH options.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
> -- Attached message below ---
> Message: 8057506
> FROM: Jim Paris
>
> Why not write your own wrapper front end? That's what we do (it's only a
> few lines of code - see perl.com for an example wrapper). Our wrapper
> simply returns 100 if it's spam, the first line of output being the
> score, the second being the short form of stuff to add to the headers,
> an
Mailscanner/Spamassassin user here, Have a question reguarding the setup of
spamassassin and mailscanner.
First off, it works great, but in some cases too good. I like to keep a low
threshhold of about 7, but there are always the whiners in the bunch that
say that it tags everything as spam and w
> >The \d's there are unnecessary, as \w includes digits. That means a
> >character class is not needed, so the regex simplifies to
> >
> > rawbody UNIQUE_BODY_ID/^(?:(?:\w{7,}-)+)\w{7,}$/
> >
> >Greg
>
> This strikes me as a bad rule. It matches any hyphenated English phrase
>
Jim Paris wrote
>Maybe all I want/need is an option to have SpamAssassin spit out the
>report and let me deal with it externally. 'spamc -c' comes close,
>but I'm still missing the report if I do that. Maybe a 'spamc -C'
>would be in order. Then, I can MIME-mangle and spam-bounce all I'd
>like
> I can't speak for Craig, but I'm sure a patch to implement adding spam
> reports by MIME-mangling would be considered.
Depending on what Rick manages to get done, maybe I'll look into doing
this over the weekend.
> Everyone pretty much agrees that SpamAssassin does one thing, and does
> it wel
Greg Ward wrote:
>On 13 March 2002, Kerry Nice said:
>
>>Very cool. But it only worked when I changed it from body to rawbody.
>>I assume that is because it is at the very end of the message.
>>
>>rawbody UNIQUE_BODY_ID/^(?:(?:[\w\d]{7,}-)+)[\w\d]{7,}$/
>>
>
The problem with this approach is that some of us deal with clueless
people, and the even more clueless Exchange Server which hides all
internet headers when reading the message in Outlook.
Teaching people (and getting them to remember it) about clicking the
View menu / options to even SEE the
On 13 March 2002, Kerry Nice said:
> Very cool. But it only worked when I changed it from body to rawbody.
> I assume that is because it is at the very end of the message.
>
> rawbody UNIQUE_BODY_ID/^(?:(?:[\w\d]{7,}-)+)[\w\d]{7,}$/
^^
Yes, you have a point. However, running logcheck I am notified
every hour of each message that gets bounced, and if the sender
or subject line bears scrutiny, I can check it and whitelist_to
or whitelist_from in local.cf as appropriate. The bounces are
copied and archived for seven days.
This
[Rick Smith, quoting Jim Paris]
> 1) If a message is spam, it should not be modified, but instead be
>replaced by a multipart/mixed message where the first part is
>a text/plain containing the SpamAssassin report and the second
>part is a message/rfc822 containing the original, unmodi
I recently received some personal mail with the following
HotMail-generated ad. at the end (linebreaks are mine):
MSN Photos is the easiest way to
share and print your photos: Click Here
Here's the SpamAssassin report:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (6.17 hits, 5 required)
SP
Hello,
I've tried searching the archives, but either I can't search or the answer
isn't there, so I just ask here.
I've downloaded and installed Spamassassin, and I'm quite pleased with it.
Because I get quite a lot of mail, I'm using spamd. I tried setting up the
system so it starts spamd au
I realize there's a fix in the works for the problem with the report
being only in the header when the spam in question is MIME encoded.
I noticed that the CVS comments said that the tests were broken by the
addition of the fix and that it was rolled back.
Any clue when it'll be released with
> Per. 5.6.1 (and maybe 5.6.0) can do a zero-width negative look-behind
assertion.
> Just add
>
> (?
> right before "sex", and it won't match "essex" anymore.
(?https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
[sorry - don't have the original message anymore, so responding to this
one]
> I don't see much point in tagging spam and then delivering it anyway.
> The spammers still got their message through. So what if it's in a
> special little folder all its own?
well personally, that "special little fo
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 08:28 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Geoff Gibbs wrote:
> >I believe that the current version of PORN_4 (2.11) is triggered by :-
> >
> >http://www.essex.ac.uk/
> >
> >giving:-
> >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=PORN_4 version=2.11
> Good. That means SpamAss
> This isn't a legal DNS name, though. It would seem reasonable to match
> it but, er, are you /really/ getting 8-bit characters in the headers?
Well there is the native language DNS project that has started to
implement, so I beleive we will see more and more domains that are not
written in 7bit
On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:19 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> > I characterize this as follows:
> > header TO_8BITTo =~ /[\x80-\xff]/
> > describe TO_8BITAddressee has 8 bit characters
> > score TO_8BIT5
> This isn't a legal DNS name
Geoff Gibbs wrote:
>Matt Sergeant replied:
>
>>>I believe that the current version of PORN_4 (2.11) is triggered by :-
>>>
>>>http://www.essex.ac.uk/
>>>
>
>>Good. That means SpamAssassin is working ;-)
>>
>
>I am not sure that the burgers of that fine county would see it quite
>like that ;-) I w
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Is it too much to assume that eight-bit characters in the e-mail part
> of an address is a sign of junk? I get a lot of Asian spam in this
> form, but I understand Unicode domains are on their way, so it will
> now be possible for me to receive mail from
Very cool. But it only worked when I changed it from body to rawbody.
I assume that is because it is at the very end of the message.
rawbody UNIQUE_BODY_ID/^(?:(?:[\w\d]{7,}-)+)[\w\d]{7,}$/
describe UNIQUE_BODY_IDString in body which acts as unique ID
score UNIQUE_BODY_ID
I've recently gotten two spams with subject IDs which
check_for_unique_subject_id() doesn't match:
Seen On Tv Plan Lets You tap Into Explosive Internet Growth 4151dl5
Web Content Management 6217ecfg7-1l10
Hmmm, a "seen on TV" without a "as seen on"...
--
Visit http://dmoz.org, the world's
42 matches
Mail list logo
