Re: [SAtalk] Digest of junk mail

At 11:29 22/04/2002, you wrote: >There apparently used to be a script or something called "digestify" >that did exactly that. There are a lot of references on deja about it >from a few years ago; it seems to have disappeared, though. Perhaps >someone has a copy of it laying around. > >--Yan dige

[SAtalk] Having trouble getting spamassassin to run

Hello, all My configuration: postfix delivering to procmail (spamassassin is called there) and then further to cyrus. System is a SuSE 8.0 SMP. At first, I found the following in the procmail-log: procmail: Program failure (70) of "/usr/bin/spamassassin" procmail: Rescue of unfiltered data suc

[SAtalk] Win32 port of SA

I've updated the HOWTO on http://www.openhandhome.com/howtosa.html Besides a few more terminology fixes, etc, there's a new part added on how to get SpamProxyd running on Win32 as well! Yay! I haven't tested it much, but it looks like it works. It does look like SpamProxyd has a BUG, though I'm

Re: [SAtalk] Undefined Razor::Client??

On Monday 22 April 2002 01:26 pm, Mark Lucas wrote: > Why do I get 'Undefined Razor::Client' message when procmail calls > spamassassin? Everything has been installed according to the instructions > (so far as I can tell). Either upgrade SA to 2.20 or downgrade Razor to 1.19 -- Visit http://dmo

Re: [SAtalk] Undefined Razor::Client??

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Mark Lucas wrote: > Why do I get 'Undefined Razor::Client' message when procmail calls > spamassassin? Everything has been installed according to the instructions Mark, You must be new to the list. I asked the same question a couple of days ago here is the answer. And it

Re: [SAtalk] Undefined Razor::Client??

On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 15:26, Mark Lucas wrote: > Why do I get 'Undefined Razor::Client' message when procmail calls > spamassassin? Everything has been installed according to the instructions > (so far as I can tell). Versions? I'll bet: SA 2.11 Razor 1.20 Upgrade SA to 2.20 or downgrade Raz

Re: [SAtalk] false positive

At 2:27 PM -0400 on 4/22/02, Duncan Findlay wrote: > > Or is a threshold of 5 too low ? What do other people use ? > >I use 4.0, and I'm very happy. I use 3.7 and I'd argue that I'm slightly happier. ;-) Gawain ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [E

[SAtalk] Undefined Razor::Client??

Why do I get 'Undefined Razor::Client' message when procmail calls spamassassin? Everything has been installed according to the instructions (so far as I can tell). Mark ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.source

Re: [SAtalk] Win32 port of SA

At 12:47 PM 4/22/2002 -0700, Michael Bell wrote: >Well, the usefulness is for people to judge. I had my own venial >reasons; I want to integrate it with MY product. However, I point out >that one POP3 proxy has been posted previously on this list by a >fellow Win32 fellow > > > Unless I'm miss

[SAtalk] Win32 port of SA

Well, the usefulness is for people to judge. I had my own venial reasons; I want to integrate it with MY product. However, I point out that one POP3 proxy has been posted previously on this list by a fellow Win32 fellow > Unless I'm missing something, it appears it _works_ but I'm > doubtful

Re: [SAtalk] Win32 port of SA

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:18:51AM -0700, Michael Bell wrote: > I've posted the HOWTO (a few more changes, but more or less the same > as the last post) on > > http://www.openhandhome.com/howtosa.html > Unless I'm missing something, it appears it _works_ but I'm doubtful as to if it's _useful_.

Re: [SAtalk] Spamd Debug Output

On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 12:40, Jay Hodges wrote: > I having real trouble with this error message. After changing to Postgres > from mysql, I had no problems. Then I upgraded to 2.20 and am getting the > error below in the spamd debug output. > > DBI:Pg:spamassassin:localhost > > SQL Error: ERROR

Re: [SAtalk] false positive

On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:56:02PM +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote: > With the new version 2.20 I got a false positive with a newsletter > I receive. > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.8 required=5.0 tests=EXCUSE_3, > HTTP_WITH_EMAIL_IN_URL version=2.20 > X-Spam-Report: 6.8 hits, 5 required; >

[SAtalk] Spamd Debug Output

I having real trouble with this error message. After changing to Postgres from mysql, I had no problems. Then I upgraded to 2.20 and am getting the error below in the spamd debug output. DBI:Pg:spamassassin:localhost SQL Error: ERROR: Missing '=' after 'spamassassin:localhost' in conninfo Any

Re: [SAtalk] Why am I getting this?

Calling spamassassin from procmail with the /usr/bin/perl solved the problem. I still don't know why though. The #! line looks OK. #!/usr/bin/perl The prior version had: #!/usr/local/bin/perl BUT BOTH locations have exactly the same perl Doug On 22 Apr 2002, Jason Kohles wrote: > > > I can

Re: [SAtalk] Magnitude of problem

Bart Schaefer wrote: BS> Consider the free email services (hotmail, yahoo, etc.), or even AOL's BS> web-based mail interface. How many users do they have to support? How BS> many non-spam messages a day do their servers generate? I'll bet the BS> total dwarfs the biggest spammers by many order

Re: [SAtalk] Why am I getting this?

On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 11:35, Doug Crompton wrote: > I am getting the following after installing 2.20 : > > > Total Average Number Folder > - --- -- -- > 0 0 1 ## /usr/bin/SpamAssassin/spamassassin: > /usr/bin/SpamAssassin/spamassassin: line 18: ` if ($^O eq 'MacOS') {

[SAtalk] Why am I getting this?

I am getting the following after installing 2.20 : Total Average Number Folder - --- -- -- 0 0 1 ## /usr/bin/SpamAssassin/spamassassin: /usr/bin/SpamAssassin/spamassassin: line 18: ` if ($^O eq 'MacOS') {' 0 0 1 ## /usr/bin/SpamAssassin/spamassassin: BEGIN: comm

Re: [SAtalk] Magnitude of problem

At 10:45 PM 4/21/2002 -0400, Jim Paris wrote: >... > > so, in contrast to 28,800 possible messages in the day, an unencumbered > > spammer could deliver between 147744 and 4060800 pieces of spam. yes, > > 28,000 messages is a lot but it's one helluva lot less than 150,000. >... > >I think you'll

Re: [SAtalk] Magnitude of problem

At 09:54 PM 4/21/2002 -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote: >Jim Paris wrote: > >JP> Sure, the numbers can be debated (and I'm not really interested in >JP> doing so). But you will at least agree, I hope, that your hashcash >JP> solution will slow down spammers _only_ if they happen to be sending >JP> mor

RE: [SAtalk] false positive

7 is the most common at my site. --- Ed. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric > S. Johansson > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 4:44 PM > To: Klaus Heinz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] false positive > > > At 02:56 PM 4/21

Re: [SAtalk] Re: postfix and spam assassin

Hi, I've got a different setup without any users on my postfix. It's a relay server. So no local delivery. I hope it's still possible. Another question, how is this compared with MIMESweeper? They said that this program rocks. Thanks. - Original Message - From: "Mark Lucas" <[EMAIL PRO

RE: [SAtalk] bug 227: triplets.txt?

> Urk! My fault. I forgot to update Makefile.PL and MANIFEST to > include the > new file; that's been fixed and checked in. Fix is broken, slightly: (from make install) > cp: cannot stat `rules/rules/triplets.txt': No such file or directory I changed "rules/triplets.txt" to simply "triplets.t

Re: [SAtalk] Re: postfix and spam assassin

Can Spamproxy be used instead of procmail without breaking individual users' procmail recipes? Mark - Original Message - From: "Daniel Pittman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: [SAtalk] Re: postfix and spam assassin > On Mon,

Re: [SAtalk] false positive

> I've been using SA for about 2 months now and have been running with the > default threshold of 5 hits. > > With the new version 2.20 I got a false positive with a newsletter > I receive. My very first hit with SA was on a subscribed newsletter, mostly caused by CTYPE_JUST_HTML. Within a day I

Re: [SAtalk] Digest of junk mail

Gregor Lawatscheck wrote: > > > I was thinking this. I'm intending to write something that'll go through a > Maildir will all the (possible) Spam in it and digest it with "From" > "Subject" and possibly a link to sqwebmail to be able to look at it. If > anyone else is quicker in hacking somethi

[SAtalk] Problems with SpamAssassin 2.20

Hi, I upgraded SpamAssassin from 2.11 to 2.20 and the following things are IMHO broken (and have lead to false positives) [XXX are things I did anonymize]: 1. <-- snip --> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:10:07 +0200 From: XXX XXX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: XXX@XXX, XXX@XXX Subject: Sorry, wegen der v

[SAtalk] Win32 port of SA

I've posted the HOWTO (a few more changes, but more or less the same as the last post) on http://www.openhandhome.com/howtosa.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ ___

[SAtalk] Re: postfix and spam assassin

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Onie Camara wrote: > I heard lot of good things about spam assassin. My postfix is > configured as a relay server. Can I use spamassasin for the checking > of incoming mail before it's relayed? Yes, and it works very well. If you read the filtering document that came with Po

RE: [SAtalk] postfix and spam assassin

Yes. Use spamproxy, which is included in the 2.20 distribution. It was designed to work with postfix. - dan -- Dan Kohn Essays announced on -Original Message- From: Onie Camara [mailto:[EMAIL PR

[SAtalk] postfix and spam assassin

Hi guys, I'm new on the list. I heard lot of good things about spam assassin. My postfix is configured as a relay server. Can I use spamassasin for the checking of incoming mail before it's relayed? Thanks. neil camara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - cc{na|sa}, mcse - pgp 0x77B2 network/security eng