I just went through and took a close look at the scores. I think they turned
out very well - the GA and I agree on just about everything this time. Bart
already mentioned some of these, but here is a list of scores I find
questionable.
First, three definite problems:
>score PORN_8
Bart Schaefer writes:
> This, on the other hand, is not clear. The GPL attempts to apply to the
> algorithms used in the code as well as to the literal code itself; some
> people interpret this to mean that if you so much as look at a piece of
> GPL'd code, you might accidentally learn something
Duncan Findlay writes:
> On Debian, the score for CHARSET_FARAWAY went from 0.0 to 0.0. :-)
Instead of setting CHARSET_FARAWAY to 0.0, why not just have a
"ok_locales every" option that indicates the rule should be disabled
and make that the Debian default?
Then, it only requires one line in th
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
BS> > It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and
BS> > I think there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending
BS> > it in ways which are compatible with the SA license, but not with
Craig R Hughes writes:
> Of course, maybe the original author could be convinced to offer an
> Artistic license on his work, then the problem would magically go
> away.
I'll ask.
> I imagine this would probably happen more frequently in email than
> in "normal" text, since emails tend to use ab
Hi,
True, true... but :)
QT, Apache, mod_ssl et al can all be considered 'modules' that run on Linux
which is GPL'd :)
Isn't Inodb for MySQL not GPL'd but still an optional part of MySQL (which
is now GPL'd) ?
Either way a quick letter the the FSF or RMS would clear it up and this is
probably
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and
> I think there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending
> it in ways which are compatible with the SA license, but not with the
> GPL (they don't want to release
Hi,
Again, IANAL but there are GPL'd perl modules, BSD perl modules etc etc, are
Net::DNS, Mail::Mime etc, all gpl'd?
Regards,
Rick
- Original Message -
From: "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daniel Quinlan" <[E
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 the voices made Rick Macdougall write:
> An add on module to Spam Assassin (IMHO) would not make SpamAssassin a GPL'd
> product, just that module
This is my understanding as well, but I'm not sure if that module can be part
of the basic package that people download when gett
Quoting Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are my settings... other than the rewrite_subject.
> > My users use that to filter in the mail client.
>
> That's ok if you add a rule that guarantees that mail is not flagged as spam
> on the
> way o
Hi,
As always, IANAL but If I interpret the GPL correctly then any and all
changes made by someone to the module that ARE released to the general
public or sold to a 3rd party must be released in source form to the general
public or 3rd party.
An add on module to Spam Assassin (IMHO) would n
Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are my settings... other than the rewrite_subject.
> My users use that to filter in the mail client.
That's ok if you add a rule that guarantees that mail is not flagged as spam on the
way out, since then the subject will not be changed. You want to b
> score: CHARSET_FARAWAY 0.8 -> 2.070
>
> The Debian people will just love that one.
On Debian, the score for CHARSET_FARAWAY went from 0.0 to 0.0. :-)
--
Duncan Findlay
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.
DQ> Do you accept GPL modules?
It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and I think
there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending it in ways
which are compatible with the SA license, but not with the GPL (they don't want
to release source back, or wa
> I didn't see any way mentioned to tell qmail-scanner not to scan
> outgoing mail. If
> you follow the advice of setting your SA preferences to not
> modify the body and add a
> rule that gives a big negative score for some header that you can
> be sure indicates
> that the mail is being sent fro
Craig,
Do you accept GPL modules?
I'm working on adapting TextCat, a language guesser, for use in SA, but
the one perl script (which I converted into a module) and the language
definitions files are licensed with the GPL (by the upstream author).
Here's the upstream source:
http://odur.let.ru
Quoting Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Is there a way to configure it to not scan outgoing email.
> > I'm thinking this is actually done through qmail-scanner?
> rewrite_subject 0
> report_header 1
> use_terse_report 1
> defang_mime 0
> skip_
Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Is there a way to configure it to not scan outgoing email.
> I'm thinking this is actually done through qmail-scanner?
The qmail-scanner faq says:
10. How do I configure/install Spam Assassin?
[...] I'd recommend not running it in the default mode, wher
I have two questions/issues that are related...
1. I am part of several mailing lists and it appears that my outgoing emails,
when parsed through spamassassin are getting garbled when sending to mailing
lists. In fact, when trying to confirm my subsribe to this list, it rejected
it, because s
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Scott Doty wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 03:16:51PM -0700, John Lang wrote:
> > Should this work?
> >
> > whitelist_from*@my-cast.com, *@elitepc.com
>
> Try
>
> whitelist_from*@my-cast.com
> whitelist_from*@elitepc.com
The multiple line version is
Ken Causey wrote:
>
> OK, after reading through the source for one of the Received header
> tests, I realize they aren't exactly infallible. Thanks.
>
> Ken Causey
>
> On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:31, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > On 19 Apr 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any case in which a
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 03:16:51PM -0700, John Lang wrote:
> Should this work?
>
> whitelist_from*@my-cast.com, *@elitepc.com
Try
whitelist_from *@my-cast.com
whitelist_from *@elitepc.com
-Scott
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
Should this work?
whitelist_from*@my-cast.com, *@elitepc.com
I've also tried it as:
whitelist_from"*@my-cast.com", "*@elitepc.com"
I know my user_prefs is being used because I change the required_hits
to 5.9 and saw the results in the spam headers.
--
John Lang,
E-mail: [EMAIL PRO
I'm having this problem and I have no quotes on the
addresses. I thought it might be tabs between the
directive and the contents, but that seems to work
for other directives.
-faisal
___
Spamassassin-talk mail
OK, after reading through the source for one of the Received header
tests, I realize they aren't exactly infallible. Thanks.
Ken Causey
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:31, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
>
> > Is there any case in which a "valid" email has forged recieved hea
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here are some that are uninteresting except for the magnitude of change:
>
> score: DOMAIN_BODY 0.8 -> 4.782
For at least this one and possibly some of the others, the large
change is because the original score was assigned by a human. I
suspect that
Michael Blakeley wrote:
MB> whitelist_from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Lose the quotes and see if that helps.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
At 12:42 -0700 2002-04-19, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>Michael Blakeley wrote:
>
>MB> whitelist_from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
>Lose the quotes and see if that helps.
That did it. Looking at the user_prefs template again, I guess it is
pretty obvious:
# Whitelist and blacklist addresses are now file-glo
Sorry if this is a FAQ: I checked the FAQ and list archives without
coming across the answer.
I'm using SpamAssassin 2.11 on a server that I don't control. I'm
trying to whitelist a particular From address using my
$HOME/.spamassassin/user_preferences file. Here's the config and my
test:
$ p
>
> Finally! It's here! I just rolled out the .tar.gz and .zip files to the
> spamassassin.org website, so it should either be updated now, or will
> auto-update itself soon to reflect that. Matt Seargeant, I'd be
> obliged if you
> could update CPAN with 2.20. The CVS tag for this release is
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS>
BS> > What I still can't figure out is why this matched ASCII_FORM_ENTRY.
BS>
BS> I just did a cvs update and noticed that the GA has now reduced the score
BS> on ASCII_FORM_ENTRY 3.135 -> 0.036.
Any sufficiently advanced GA
I have a perl script that diffs scores files and reports large changes.
Glancing through its output:
score: BUGZILLA_BUG -2.000 -> 1.123
(I thought BUGZILLA_BUG wasn't supposed to be passed through the GA?)
score: CHARSET_FARAWAY 0.8 -> 2.070
The Debian people will just love that one.
score:
Finally! It's here! I just rolled out the .tar.gz and .zip files to the
spamassassin.org website, so it should either be updated now, or will
auto-update itself soon to reflect that. Matt Seargeant, I'd be obliged if you
could update CPAN with 2.20. The CVS tag for this release is
spamassa
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> What I still can't figure out is why this matched ASCII_FORM_ENTRY.
I just did a cvs update and noticed that the GA has now reduced the score
on ASCII_FORM_ENTRY 3.135 -> 0.036.
___
Spamassassin-talk maili
It appears that QuickMailPro for the Mac can generate messages that match
the TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL rule. The original message to which this was a
reply (which is excerpted in full, sigh) does not have any real names.
What I still can't figure out is why this matched ASCII_FORM_ENTRY. The
undersc
On 19 Apr 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
> Is there any case in which a "valid" email has forged recieved headers?
Rarely; but I'm sure there are cases in which SpamAssassin may mistakenly
identify a received header as forged when it really is not.
You can think of it as lowering the score to account
Ken Causey wrote:
> I realize that most of the scores in SA were GA derived, and I agree
> that that seems like a very good technique. However, I have to wonder
> at the scores for forged recieved headers. Is there any case in which a
> "valid" email has forged recieved headers? Why don't thes
I realize that most of the scores in SA were GA derived, and I agree
that that seems like a very good technique. However, I have to wonder
at the scores for forged recieved headers. Is there any case in which a
"valid" email has forged recieved headers? Why don't these tests have
higher scores?
38 matches
Mail list logo
