Here's a revised version of the procmail stuff I use to add X-message-flag
headers with spam reports so that Outlook can view them.
The first recipe is the same as the original, slightly modified to eliminate an
extra space in the X-message-flag header. The second recipe takes the
X-message-flag
You can leave out the lockfilename, just include the trailing colon.
C
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:21:15 -0800
> From: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Missing 'F', corrupt mailfile
>
> Stefan Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Rob McM
Well, if you did a "make text_html_doc" you could indeed look at that .txt file
(or the HTML one). But in any case, perldoc will get the docs out of the POD
information in the actual perl module.
C
Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:21:38 -0800
> From: Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECT
Beware of XXX-teens of all-XXX-all-the-time or something though.
C
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:45:43 -0500
> From: Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spamassassin-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] PORN3 and PORN12
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:34:17P
I'd say the one plausible advantage Brightmail might have is that since they're
in at Hotmail and other large installations, they could implement systems that
notice that 45,000 people all just received the same message, making it likely
that those messages are spam.
Their rules and scoring ar
Stefan Fredriksson wrote:
> Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>> Stefan Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> something weird happens when I use spamassassin.
>>> It seems to cut of the first "F" wich makes ofcourse the mailfile
>>> corrupt.
>>> Below is the output of my mailfile when I sent myself 2 simple
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>Stupid question, but is this a bug in razor 1.20, or spamassassin?
>
IIRC, neither; the problem was a workaround installed in SA to deal with
a Razor bug.
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
__
Stupid question, but is this a bug in razor 1.20, or spamassassin?
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:54 pm, Scott Baker wrote:
> > I'm trying to get the razor checks working... I installed the razor client
> > and all the other CPAN dependancies it had a
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:14:40AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Right, but you can already do that with report_header
>
> perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
>
> if you didn't find those docs yet.
Ahah, I was looking for this after reading about thisthe main readme
---
Take a look at the "Mail_Spa
Quoting Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
> > spamc seems to work; however, when I receive an incoming mail message, I
> get
>
> Does it work or not? Do you get a SA header in the output?
Running spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
as a non-roo
--- Quoting Brian on 2002/03/27 at 19:35 -0600:
>
> I see similar behavior, but my spamassasin is working, but I still see in
> my maillog the line about "Still running as root:"
This will happen if the email is destined for root@ and root is running
spamc via ~/.procmailrc or equivalent. Eit
Duncan,
> It's true though. But you must remember, the best things in life are free.
I have been using open source software for 10, 12, 15 years, can
remember, long time anyway.
So I am conveinced, but big companies are not.
Olivier
___
Spamassassin
> Agreed. If you file a bugzilla bug (bugzilla.spamassassin.org), it will be
> fixed.
Done, see bug # 146.
--
michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/
"In this business you either sink or swim or you don't."-- David Smith
__
> when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
> spamc seems to work; however, when I receive an incoming mail message, I get
Does it work or not? Do you get a SA header in the output?
> the same error in the maillog:
>
> Mar 27 16:55:05 mail spamd[2590]: connection from sandman.realtyroad.co
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:54:37PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using the src .tar.gz file I downloaded and compiled myself.
>
> perl Makefile.PL
> make
> make install (as root)
>
> I may have spoken too soon, becuase I am still having the same exact problem
> as before.
> when
> I see similar behavior, but my spamassasin is working, but I still see in
> my maillog the line about "Still running as root:"
> Mar 27 19:26:48 spamassasin spamd[25004]: identified spam (25/5) for
> kenk:99 in 1 seconds.
> Mar 27 19:28:11 spamassasin spamd[24987]: connection from
> mercury.s
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 08:35:38AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
> >$30k/year. For that kind of money, you could hire someone to block spam!
>
> I think, that we have a biased vision here. Because we are all coming
> fr
Hello,
I'm using the src .tar.gz file I downloaded and compiled myself.
perl Makefile.PL
make
make install (as root)
I may have spoken too soon, becuase I am still having the same exact problem
as before.
when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
spamc seems to work; however, when I receive
>Unless I'm missing some features in SA, I can't see that it infringes
>anyone's freedom of speech. All it does is attempt to identify
I don't see it as a problem of freedom of speech, but at a problem of
pointing finger at some companies saying "those are bad guys".
We know they are, but as so
Unless I'm missing some features in SA, I can't see that it infringes
anyone's freedom of speech. All it does is attempt to identify
unsolicited commercial email, and then add tags to it. It's up to users
what they do with tagged mail.
Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest some sm
>Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
>$30k/year. For that kind of money, you could hire someone to block spam!
I think, that we have a biased vision here. Because we are all coming
from open source world, we see/trust/think open source first.
But for many
I see similar behavior, but my spamassasin is working, but I still see in
my maillog the line about "Still running as root:"
Mar 27 19:26:48 spamassasin spamd[25004]: identified spam (25/5) for
kenk:99 in 1 seconds.
Mar 27 19:28:11 spamassasin spamd[24987]: connection from
mercury.shreve.ne
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:21:54PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Apparently, the previous version of SA (2.01) used
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as the configuration file, and this new
> version requires the configuration file to be called: spamassassin.cf
That's odd, I'm using that file wi
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:21:54PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> I figured out the problem...
>
> Apparently, the previous version of SA (2.01) used
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as the configuration file, and this new
> version requires the configuration file to be called: spamassassin.cf
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 2.11 from 2.01 and now my spamd is
> not working properly. All mails are getting through, and nothing it going
> through spam assassin.
>
> The Spamassassin perl script works fine
Hi, I am using spamc/spamd (latest version) and have noticed the following
behavior. Running with auto-whitelist supports works, as well as general
spamc/spamd functionality. But when I enable SQL, i get the following
errors on a debug:
Cannot create tmp lockfile //.spamassassin/auto-whitel
I figured out the problem...
Apparently, the previous version of SA (2.01) used
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as the configuration file, and this new
version requires the configuration file to be called: spamassassin.cf
I could not find anything about that in the docs. If this is correct, you
Hello,
Just recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 2.11 from 2.01 and now my spamd is
not working properly. All mails are getting through, and nothing it going
through spam assassin.
The Spamassassin perl script works fine with the test mails; however, I have
been using the spamc/spamd combo since 2
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:40:46PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:35:11PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > My question is why would any company use brightmail? Is it actually that
> > much superior to spamassassin?
>
> I don't see how it _could_ be that much superior!
>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Maurits Bloos wrote:
>> From: dman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:58:45PM +0100, Maurits Bloos wrote:
>> |
>> | And how do I do that with postfix as the 'in-between-hop' to my
>> | (yuk) M$ Exchange Server (yuk). Most of the messages are a couple
>>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:34:17PM -0700, Michael Moncur wrote:
> This line in a credit card statement managed to trigger both PORN_3 and
> PORN_12:
>
> Account Number : ---1234
>
> I've whitelisted the source, but perhaps something can be adjusted to avoid
> this - it seems like "x
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Søren Boll Overgaard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:10:57PM -0500, Nick Mitchell wrote:
> > I have been reading through the SpamAssassin docs and i don't see anything
> > about deleting the messages it tags as spam, is there a way to do this??
>
> A
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Michael Moncur wrote:
[...]
> Anything using src=cid: should be treated very suspiciously as a
> virus. That's what you've been sent (Either Klez or BadTrans - not
> sure without seeing the subject of the email).
src:cid is the standard way of referen
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:35:11PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> My question is why would any company use brightmail? Is it actually that
> much superior to spamassassin?
I don't see how it _could_ be that much superior!
Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:31:48PM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Stefan Fredriksson wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >
> >something weird happens when I use spamassassin.
> >It seems to cut of the first "F" wich makes ofcourse the mailfile
> >corrupt.
> >Below is the output of my mailfile when I sent myself 2 si
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:35:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:47 am, you wrote:
>
> > We're a £100m company (an ISP, and yes we're growing, not struggling),
> > and SA is at the very heart of our anti-spam technology. Trust me - we
> > would not let SA go away.
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:17:42AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> The problem is that outgoing mail follows a different path. I'm not
> sure where you'd interpose the "add to AWL" bit on the outbound path. I
> guess if you know the SMTP server your MUA is sending through you could
> implement it t
This line in a credit card statement managed to trigger both PORN_3 and
PORN_12:
Account Number : ---1234
I've whitelisted the source, but perhaps something can be adjusted to avoid
this - it seems like "xxx this and xxx that" should be an indicator of porn,
but "-" isn't li
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 12:22, Nix wrote:
> On a vaguely similar topic, I'm using this stuff in my .procmailrc
Here's the relevant part of my procmailrc (for use with maildir). The
only interesting part is that I don't want ANY spamassassin gunk in
messages that don't go to my Junk folder, hence t
On 27 Mar 2002, Nix wrote:
> | # Is this severe spam?
> | :0 H:
> | * ^X-Spam-Flag: YES$
> | * ? test `sed -n '/^X-Spam-Status: Yes, /{s/^.*hits=\([0-9]*\).*$/\1/;p;}'` -gt 15
> | spambox
Much more efficient:
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=(1[5-9]|[2-9][0-9])
spambox
On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:54 pm, Scott Baker wrote:
> I'm trying to get the razor checks working... I installed the razor client
> and all the other CPAN dependancies it had and now I'm getting this error:
>
> razor check skipped: No such file or directory undefined Razor::Client
>
> Any idea
>From the artcile:
Have you received an e-mail claiming to be from Nigerian government officials
or petroleum executives trying to smuggle money out of their country? Are you
getting tired of spiking all that Nigerian spam?
Well the Nigerian government is sick of those scams, too.
http://w
I'm trying to get the razor checks working... I installed the razor client
and all the other CPAN dependancies it had and now I'm getting this error:
razor check skipped: No such file or directory undefined Razor::Client
Any ideas how to fix this, or where to start looking?
-
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Søren
> Boll Overgaard
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: Nick Mitchell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Deleting Scored Spam
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:10:57PM -0500
On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:47 am, you wrote:
> We're a £100m company (an ISP, and yes we're growing, not struggling),
> and SA is at the very heart of our anti-spam technology. Trust me - we
> would not let SA go away.
That's a relief.
Also, thanks for supporting an open-source project like
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:10:57PM -0500, Nick Mitchell wrote:
> I have been reading through the SpamAssassin docs and i don't see anything
> about deleting the messages it tags as spam, is there a way to do this??
Assuming that you use procmail to run spamassassin, you can simply use the rule
d
I have been reading through the SpamAssassin docs and i don't see anything
about deleting the messages it tags as spam, is there a way to do this??
Thanks
Nick
~~~
Nick Mitchell
Network Engineer (NOT A SALESPERSON)
Delaware.Net, Inc.
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, dman yowled:
> If you don't want these messages to be checked use this condition :
>
> condition = "${if and { {!def:h_X-Spam-Flag:} {!eq
>{$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}} {!eq {$received_protocol}{local}} } {1}{0}}"
On a vaguely similar topic, I'm using this stuff i
Well, I would revert then to saying that if you can somehow invoke
spamassassin -w "nametoadd" while sending the message, then you can
surely invoke some shell script which does
egrep '^To:' | spamassassin -W
C
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 03:02, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2002 the voices ma
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:08:10PM +0100, Maurits Bloos wrote:
| Does anyone have a spamc/spamd config/script for the postfix content_filter
| stuff.
No, I don't use postfix. However, spamc is used just the same way
that the 'spamassassin' script is used. Pass a message on stdin, it
comes back
Does anyone have a spamc/spamd config/script for the postfix content_filter
stuff.
I searched the archive but I couldn't find hints on how to implement this
...
> -Original Message-
> From: dman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: woensdag 27 maart 2002 18:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
At 11:38 AM 3/27/02, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:12:28AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 17:20, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > > Is spamassassin actually giving a combined 3.5 score to any
> mail that
> > > originated from a dialup IP, even if it was pro
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Again, if this is really what's happening, I don't understand why a
> message is being penalized because it originated from a dialup modem. If
> it was properly relayed through the ISP's mail server, where's the
> problem?
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:58:45PM +0100, Maurits Bloos wrote:
|
| And how do I do that with postfix as the 'in-between-hop' to my (yuk) M$
| Exchange Server (yuk).
| Most of the messages are a couple of MB (images/eps/tiff & stuff) Messages
| of 6MB+ is standard here :-)
Use spamc/spamd. If a
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:11:08AM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
| Bascically what happened is they discovered that probing open relays
| is dangerous
Only in a political way. (just to avoid anyone asking what the harm
is or what could blow up)
| and can get you in trouble, so they stopped doing
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:12:28AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 17:20, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > Is spamassassin actually giving a combined 3.5 score to any mail that
> > originated from a dialup IP, even if it was properly relayed through an
> > ISP's mail server?
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:06:57PM -, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> I can't see how this can work...
>
> Spammers will simply put in a special case for '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' so
> they don't send to it.
> Malicious people will subscribe things like mailing lists to it. All I
> would
> have to do to get t
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:06:57PM -, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> I can't see how this can work...
>
> Spammers will simply put in a special case for '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' so
> they don't send to it.
> Malicious people will subscribe things like mailing lists to it. All I
> would
> have to do to get t
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Bill Becker write:
> If a spammer sues you it will probably be in a US federal court. You will
> need an attorney who is going bill you at hundreds of dollars per hour
> whether you win or lose. It could take years to resolve.
EFF, your freedom to not have
If a spammer sues you it will probably be in a US federal court. You will
need an attorney who is going bill you at hundreds of dollars per hour
whether you win or lose. It could take years to resolve.
I seriously doubt whether any attorney would defend you with the
understanding that he'll g
> -Original Message-
> From: Sidney Markowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 March 2002 18:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] ORBZ reborn as DSBL [Was: Freedom of Press
> / Speech /
> Junk Mail (yah right)]
>
>
> http://orbz.org has an announcement and link to
> http
Maurits Bloos wrote:
> And how do I do that with postfix as the 'in-between-hop' to my (yuk) M$
> Exchange Server (yuk).
> Most of the messages are a couple of MB (images/eps/tiff & stuff) Messages
> of 6MB+ is standard here :-)
> spamproxyd keeps 'slurping' memory (I have to kill it sometimes).
And how do I do that with postfix as the 'in-between-hop' to my (yuk) M$
Exchange Server (yuk).
Most of the messages are a couple of MB (images/eps/tiff & stuff) Messages
of 6MB+ is standard here :-)
spamproxyd keeps 'slurping' memory (I have to kill it sometimes).
> -Original Message-
>
Maurits Bloos wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Are there any options i should set for a High Volume Mailserver to get
> spamassassin/spamproxyd properly working (without being a resource-hog).
>
> I saw something about disabling SUBJ_ALL_CAPS ...
> Any help would be welcome.
1) use spamd/spamc not the main
Michael Moncur wrote:
> I just received an message and noticed something - the new
> RELAYING_FRAME rule catches it, but it's still not enough to mark this message
> as spam:
>
>
> iframe src=cid:A6ed42Wd7M65W7171 height=0 width=0>
> /iframe>
>
>
> (initial <'s removed just in case someone'
On 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Craig Hughes write:
> The problem is that outgoing mail follows a different path. I'm not sure
> where you'd interpose the "add to AWL" bit on the outbound path. I guess if
> you know the SMTP server your MUA is sending through you could implement it
> there; or i
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Jeffrey Thompson write:
> I would like to enable users of Spamassassin to tweak their own
> white/black lists (to start with probably could do more than this). I'm
> thinking of a web interface for this purpose (probably a PHP program
> with a form). The resu
I still say that if they show up in court to sue anyone, they're
exposing themselves to serious countersuits. The only reason I haven't
sued a lot of spammers is because I don't think I'd be able to get any
judgement against them in a place where I could show they had assets.
If they come to me
Matthew Cline wrote:
> However, if a bunch of spammers co-operated, each of them could file a
> seperate suit against SA in different jurisdictions, and more spammers could
> bring up suits when the old ones were thrown out; you can use anyone for
> anything, even if it ends up getting thrown o
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 20:47, dman wrote:
> Still, I think the idea of keeping a backup of the server in a
> different locality (jurisdiction) is a reasonable precaution. Come
> on, you've read (some) of the ridiculous stuff in the papers and the
> news, haven't you?
[craig@belphegore spamassassi
Not to stir up an old hornet's nest, but where should we keep the
block-all-cn/kr/etc rules :)
C
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 18:10, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >So theroetically spammers *could* sue SA if they are specifically listed in
> >SA rules. For instance, MonsterHut.com could sue us for defemati
The problem is that outgoing mail follows a different path. I'm not
sure where you'd interpose the "add to AWL" bit on the outbound path. I
guess if you know the SMTP server your MUA is sending through you could
implement it there; or if you send through a local sendmail, maybe you
could slip in
Right, but you can already do that with report_header
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
if you didn't find those docs yet.
C
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 17:21, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:15:14PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> > A way better solution to this is to fix bug #18/#130;
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 17:20, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Is spamassassin actually giving a combined 3.5 score to any mail that
> originated from a dialup IP, even if it was properly relayed through an
> ISP's mail server?
The problem is not so much with SA, as with the RBLs you're using.
C
Looking through the archives, anything that's been sent with an attachment
ends up not having anything; either SourceForge or GeoCrawler is stripping
them.
--
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 s
75 matches
Mail list logo
