http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119
Summary: spamd paranoid mode behavior
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 2.11
Platform: PC
OS/Version: FreeBSD
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:36:47 +
"David Cantrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fools also list .uk, so you're in good company.
Seems like a lot of ccTLD's are listed in the whois database.
.ph is and so is .se but I can't for the life of me figure out why .se is.
There's "evidence" but no
A lot of the URI rules would be more readable if characters other than "/"
were used as the regexp delimiter, since then there'd be no need to escapes
slashes. Then
/^https?:\/\/[^\/]*opt-?out/i
Would become
m!https?://[^/]*opt-?out!i
or
m{https?://[^/]*opt-?out}i
Also, this w
While coming up with a workaround to the -l problem I was having (see bugzilla
bug #113) to log Razored mail to a file, I had trouble getting -P to output
anything when -r was also used. Has anyone else seen this behavior? If so, I'd
be happy to report it to bugzilla. I don't want to report it
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:24:54AM +0100, S?ren Boll Overgaard wrote:
> Using rfc-ignorant.com would be a bad idea.
> In Denmark (where I live) our TLD-administrator is restricted by law from
> running a whois server for .dk. This has earned the entire country a place in
> rfc-ignorant.com's datab
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:53:47AM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> I recall reading that non-greedy regexps are more compute intensive than
> greedy regexps, so this might cause a perfomance hit.
Yeah. Basically, the different is greedy goes "let me match as much as I
can, then start backtracking
On Friday 22 March 2002 12:57 am, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Matt, everything below sounds great. Is the stuff above definitely
> great, or worth me spending some time figuring out what you mean and
> then deciding whether or not to include it?
The only downside I can think of is the HTML comment re
On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 10:28, rODbegbie wrote:
> I usually take the time to log-on to whatever service it is,
> change their password, then mess with their settings a bit.
Here's a hint that's actually slightly relevant to this mailing list
(well, at least it is anti-spam):
If the service they si
Arrgh, I failed to hit send on this last night. I've had to modify a
few of the stock rules. Here they are:
# Less restrictive
body DEAR_SOMEBODY /^Dear /
# add fax, allow more space before the phone number
body CALL_FREE
/(?:call|dial|fax).{1,40}8(?:00|88|77|66|
I almost forgot. I've had to tweak a few existing rules.
# Slightly less picky than the stock rule
body DEAR_SOMEBODY /^Dear /
# Needed more space between the call/dial and the number, and added fax
body CALL_FREE
/(?:call|dial|fax).{1,40}8(?:00|88|77|66|55|44|33|
Occassionally, people sign up for things as fran(k|cis|co)@begbie.com -- So
I usually take the time to log-on to whatever service it is, change their
password, then mess with their settings a bit. Especially fun on bulletin
boards which dynamically add your signature to all your posts.
rOD.
--
On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 01:12, Ben Jackson wrote:
> I get a LOT of spam. You can just look at my email address
> and guess why.
I can relate to that :-)
-- sidney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not spelled the same nor related to the law firm at sidley.com, nor
disney.com, nor Sydney, Australia, nor
> -Original Message-
> From: Rich Wellner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Proxys, Win32, RFCs and other nonsense...
>
>
>
> Guys, I've had lots of problems with Reiser. The whole point, IMHO,
> is to hav
-Original Message-From: Gilles HANOTEL
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002
3:28 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [SAtalk] qmail +
vmailmgrd
Hello,
Does anybody use SpamAssassin with vmailmgrd
under qmail ?
I'm trying to use SA system wide
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> >Generally, patches which "make sense" (whatever that might mean) to a
> >wide audience I'll try and include in future releases. Some stuff (like
> >local rules, etc) won't necessarily make it in. ORBS checks have just
> >now bee
Doh! Switched the turned off one to ORBZ
C
On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 07:41, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> >Generally, patches which "make sense" (whatever that might mean) to a
> >wide audience I'll try and include in future releases. Some stuff (like
> >local rules, etc) won't ne
Craig Hughes wrote:
>Generally, patches which "make sense" (whatever that might mean) to a
>wide audience I'll try and include in future releases. Some stuff (like
>local rules, etc) won't necessarily make it in. ORBS checks have just
>now been disabled in CVS.
>
What about ORBZ tests?
--
Hello,
Does anybody use SpamAssassin with vmailmgrd under
qmail ?
I'm trying to use SA system wide with the
qmail-queue but I have a problem with vmailmgrd.
Every mail addressed to a virtual user pass twice
in the queue so it is tagged twice.
Is it possible to instruct SA not to work on
On Matt's point, my best list of patches-to-be-applied is the open bugs
in bugzilla. If you contribute a patch to this list which you think
would be usefully included in the main distribution, then please do file
a bugzilla report and attach the patch. Even when I'm not as busy as I
have been th
> -Original Message-
> From: William R Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:24 AM
> To: Sidney Markowitz
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SA should block spam that matches
> government rules
>
>
> >
> > California, Colorado, Tennessee: "ADV:"
Kenneth Chen wrote:
> Hey all:
>
> I've seen a large amount of code and patches come through this mailing
> list that enhance the performance of SpamAssassin. However, I'm no perl
> guru (or any other language) so I'm not sure what I'd do with all those
> snippets of code.
>
> Is it safe to ass
Ben Jackson wrote:
> This is just a message about myself and my spam problem to help you
> relate to the rules I'm going to send in the next few messages. If
> you only want to see technical discussion, skip this.
>
> I get a LOT of spam. You can just look at my email address and guess
> why.
Matt Sergeant writes:
>William R Ward wrote:
>>I'd propose that SA block anything with
>>/\bADV\W+ADU?LT\b|\ADU?LT\W+bADV\b|\bADV\b/i
>>in the subject.
>
>s/block/score/ and I'm with you. If you *block* based on that, you hurt
>people like advertising agencies wanting to use SA (e.g. "Sub
William R Ward wrote:
>Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>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 m
This is a subset of the rules I've added to catch spam that's gotten into
my inbox. Round scores are probably wholly made up. Others were probably
chosen to make a certain message hit 5.0.
# I hate "newsletters" with a passion. I could reduce this to one `full'
# rule to avoid double-billing,
Here is a set of rules that I added (mostly whitelist rules with negative
score) which are very specific to me but could be applied generally to
anyone's user_prefs.
(btw anything that's personal in here is readily available through other
channels so I'm not worried about it)
# This rule is to o
Generally, patches which "make sense" (whatever that might mean) to a
wide audience I'll try and include in future releases. Some stuff (like
local rules, etc) won't necessarily make it in. ORBS checks have just
now been disabled in CVS.
C
On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 00:50, Kenneth Chen wrote:
> Hey
This is just a message about myself and my spam problem to help you
relate to the rules I'm going to send in the next few messages. If
you only want to see technical discussion, skip this.
I get a LOT of spam. You can just look at my email address and guess
why. Even though I was careful for y
Hey all:
I've seen a large amount of code and patches come through this mailing
list that enhance the performance of SpamAssassin. However, I'm no perl
guru (or any other language) so I'm not sure what I'd do with all those
snippets of code.
Is it safe to assume that the code that proves reliab
29 matches
Mail list logo
