Can I get somebody to look at this? I do -not- quite understand what's
going on. Even confirmation that they see the same behaviour would
re-assure me.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202
>
>Summary: A text/html me
Craig Hughes requested that we send this e-mail including this personal note:
Hello SpamAssassin Talk,
Someone asked me if I had a wishlist online somewhere, don't recall who that was. Well, I have one at Amazon, and I've filled it with books and DVDs.
Craig Hughes
Visit Craig Hughes' Abo
H... Here's something interesting.
I forward this so that perhaps a few hundred people in the US and Canada
will call the 800 number a couple dozen times and make this a little more
expesive for the worthless losers holding this. I like costing spammers
money ;^).
Don
Origin
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 16:57, David Koblas wrote:
> He is in a new venture a friend ever so nicely forwarded me the following
> article recently:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1919000/1919576.stm
That article prefaces every statement about the venture with "New
Scientist re
On Wed Apr 10 at 06:46:51 PM, dman wrote:
> BUGGY_CGI looks for formmail.pl installs. Your message (snipped from
> below) came from a formmail.pl script. The headers seem to indicate
You miss my point.
I've had plenty of non-formmail.pl spams that say "here is the information
you requested."
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Sean Harding wrote:
| I don't see any rules for "here is the information you requested." I've had
| many spams over the years start out that way, including one on monday that
| wouldn't have been caught if it hadn't gotten a whopping 5 hits for
| BUGGY_CGI
This may be of interest -- It's about an upcoming spam fighting program
that uses Vipul's Razor combined with something that matches phrases
from a spam corpus. My experience with reporters tells me to take some
things with a grain of salt: The article is written as if Vipul is an
active partner i
Chris, I expect digital unix is missing the EX__MAX definition (like a few
others). Look at the conditional compile bit at the top of the file, and add
whatever digital's precompiler thing is to the list.
The rest of the stuff you listed is just signed/unsigned conversion warnings,
you can ig
Not any more. But I bet there's a lot of other outdated rules (and some
missing) in the translated descriptions. Not sure how best to keep those up to
date...
C
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
BS> From: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BS> To: [EMAIL PR
Default score is 1 until the GA gives it something else. Call me lazy.
C
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
BS> From: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BS> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS> Subject: [SAtalk] FORGED_JUNO_RCVD has no score ...
BS>
BS> Is this perhaps w
has anyone tried to compile this on digital unix 4.0e
I have been unable to, here are the errors:
cc -std -fprm d -ieee -D_INTRINSICS -I/usr/local/include -DLANGUAGE_C -O4
spamd
/spamc.c -o spamd/spamc -L/usr/local/lib -ldbm -ldb -lm
cc: Error: spamd/spamc.c, line 60: In the initializer for
Definitions for A_HREF_TO_OPT_OUT, A_HREF_TO_REMOVE, and A_HREF_TO_UNSUB
have been dropped from the current CVS (when fixing bug #138) but are
still present in rules/30_text_fr.cf.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sour
I don't see any rules for "here is the information you requested." I've had
many spams over the years start out that way, including one on monday that
wouldn't have been caught if it hadn't gotten a whopping 5 hits for
BUGGY_CGI.
Has anyone looked into adding this? Too many false positives?
Here
Is this perhaps waiting a run of the GA to finish before being committed,
or was it just overlooked?
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Kerry Nice wrote:
> What I'm saying is, shouldn't seeing an unsubscribe in an email count a
> whole lot less if the header isn't forged. I don't quite know how this
> could be done
The easiest way is to invent a rule for "this header is not forged" and
give it a negative sco
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> I received a copy of the "Single European Girls" message at work, where
BS> I'm using a different spam filter, which caught it giving this reasoning:
BS>
BS> X-Reject: Forged From: header slandering juno.com
BS> X-Warning: From:/Message-Id: is local, but message is exter
I received a copy of the "Single European Girls" message at work, where
I'm using a different spam filter, which caught it giving this reasoning:
X-Reject: Forged From: header slandering juno.com
X-Warning: From:/Message-Id: is local, but message is external
The procmail recipe for "slandering j
I've been tasked with creating an antispam/antivirus box to be placed in
front of our mailserver. The goal is to have the box act as primary MX,
scan messages (antivirus, spamassassin, and DCC), deliver "grey" mail to
a local mailbox/maildir, and relay all good mail to the main
mailserver. Users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Craig R. Hughes stated:
> Uhoh, since when did they start using the 80.0.0.0 netblock? Your email was
> slamming against my firewall for the last 2 days...
>
> C
>
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from s1.uklinux
19 matches
Mail list logo
