Hey all -
I'm running 2.30 under RedHat 7.2 (with security updates) and 2.4.9
(custom-compiled). I have the RBL and Vipul's Razor options enabled,
otherwise completely stock. I did change the threshold to 6.0 points in
my local user_prefs and added a couple of whitelist entries.
I run spam
>Those would be Olivier's French translation of the rule descriptions.
>Either he can package them up differently (gzip or something) or I can
>lose them. *I*'m not going to do anything with that translation
>either way. (btw, I am saving a copy of all sa-exim rejected mail, for now)
:P
Well
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:11:37PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> You're going to run the perl file Makefile.PL and so you need to pass it
> arguments. Of course, arguments aren't in the form of --... but instead
> simply
>
> perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=/usr/local
>
> and away you go :-) I forget wha
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 04:31:59PM -, Jonathan Duncan wrote:
> Both processes game me this error message:
>
> cc -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -O spamd/spamc.c -o
> spamd/spamc -Wl,-E -L/usr/local/lib -lg dbm -lm -lc -lcrypt -liconv -lutil
> /usr/libexec/elf/ld: cannot find -lic
John,
> Have you done modifications or are you using
> a standard MailScanner/SpamAssassin setup? I've set mine to "store" not
> instead of "deliver" -- and I plan to go through them manually to check for
> misidentifications (at least for now).
I use procmail, not mailscanner, so everything is
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:52:33PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
| On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 11:11:20PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > Your setup must be odd. Your message got -1.4 on my site, but I have
| > a SALIST rule scoring -10. If you hadn't sent it to the list it would
|
| You should
David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...and then Harry Putnam said...
> %
> % I'm a little lost in installing spamassassin without using the
> % ./configure approach. For example: How does one instruct the
> % `make install' to use /usr/local instead of /usr?
>
> Heh. I remember beating m
Hi,
> > Now I see no reason why in real life one should accept such case. I'd
> > say that in real life I only accept connection from machine with valid
> > DNS and reverse DNS.
> Sadly ISP's aren't as on-the-ball as you are. I've been trying for
> months to get my ISP to setup reverse DNS for s
Hi there. Thanks for the info. Have you done modifications or are you using
a standard MailScanner/SpamAssassin setup? I've set mine to "store" not
instead of "deliver" -- and I plan to go through them manually to check for
misidentifications (at least for now). However, I don't see WHERE the
Great NYT [1]overview by Jennifer Lee on the state of the spam
problem
today: ISPs say that "50 percent of incoming e-mail traffic is spam."
--
Posted by Dan Kohn to [2]Dan Kohn's Blog at 6/26/2002 6:55:16 PM
Powered by [3]Blogger Pro
References
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/0
Hi Michelle,
> Actually, I'm running spamd server-wide, invoked from a main
> procmailrc. In your scheme, spamd would be called only directly from
So do I.
> the user's .procmailrc, right? Would it still be possible to somehow
> use the .no_spam_check method to opt out when using server-wi
John,
>I'm just worried that it will come up more and more as people join such
>"specials" mailing lists since they look so much like spam sometimes. I just
>want to know how to handle them. Especially since when I switch to "delete",
>they wouldn't even SEE the emails to be able to whitelist t
SpamAssassin Talk List
My mistake. It does. My batch file was wrong.
New problem though. All email that do get put through and marked up end up with
extra line feeds in them. I know this is because *nix and the windows platform
handle them diffrently. What I don't know is if there is anything I
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 05:30:52PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> To remove the extra debugging output one needs to comment out line 164
> in Signature/Ephemeral.pm
>
> --- lib/Razor2/Signature/Ephemeral.pm,origSun Jun 16 13:22:22 2002
> +++ lib/Razor2/Signature/Ephemeral.pm Sun Jun 16 13:18
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 11:11:20PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> Your setup must be odd. Your message got -1.4 on my site, but I have
> a SALIST rule scoring -10. If you hadn't sent it to the list it would
You should put -100, some messages I've received here have scored as much
as 50+
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 12:07:36PM -0500, Smart, Dan wrote:
> header RCVD_IN_FIVETEN eval:check_rbl('relay', 'blackholes.five-ten-sg.com')
Note that you should starting using
> header RCVD_IN_FIVETEN rbleval:check_rbl('relay',
>'blackholes.five-ten-sg.com')
RBLs are run in a d
Harry --
...and then Harry Putnam said...
%
% I'm a little lost in installing spamassassin without using the
% ./configure approach. For example: How does one instruct the
% `make install' to use /usr/local instead of /usr?
Heh. I remember beating my head to a bruise against this one :-)
Y
I'm a little lost in installing spamassassin without using the
./configure approach. For example: How does one instruct the
`make install' to use /usr/local instead of /usr?
I don't know much about makefiles but looking at the one in the
distro Makefile.PL and resulting Makefile, I couldn't te
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:49:23PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:26:16AM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> > It seems that recent (>=2.30) versions of SpamAssassin require perl 5.6 or
> > higher.
>
> ??? It's running fine for me on Perl 5.00503. (needed to patch the
> dcc
> > Has the possibility of
>> using the envelope headers instead been suggested to Craig Hughes?
>
>Not all mail system tells you what is the enveloppe. Unless your mail
>system has a way to include the enveloppe inside the message headers,
>then SA will not know about it.
>
>But if your goal is
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:26:16AM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> It seems that recent (>=2.30) versions of SpamAssassin require perl 5.6 or
> higher.
??? It's running fine for me on Perl 5.00503. (needed to patch the
dcc availability check though.)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Truly unencumb
> -Original Message-
> From: David Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] What version of Perl is required for
> SpamAssassin?
>
>
> It seems that recent (>=2.30) versions of SpamAssassin
> require perl
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Am I getting my cvs from the wrong source tree? Just reupped my cvs
>> today and I see the version still says 2.21.
>
> try:
>
> cvs update -A -d
Trying as directed I see no difference at all.
I cp -a 'ed spamassassin spama_pre_
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, tang wrote:
> Just installed SpamAssassin on our Sun's Ultra10 running Solaris 7,
> but it doesn't work:
>
> tang@bionmr3:~/bin/SpamAssassin 124>./spamassassin < sample-nonspam.txt
> Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ../lib lib
This isn't a version problem.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:05:26PM -0500, tang wrote:
> Just installed SpamAssassin on our Sun's Ultra10 running Solaris 7,
> but it doesn't work:
>
> tang@bionmr3:~/bin/SpamAssassin 124>./spamassassin < sample-nonspam.txt
> Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ../lib lib
> /usr/loc
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:05:26PM -0500, tang wrote:
> tang@bionmr3:~/bin/SpamAssassin 124>./spamassassin < sample-nonspam.txt
> Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ../lib lib
It's not a perl version error, it's a "you don't have the required modules" error.
It can't find Time::H
Just installed SpamAssassin on our Sun's Ultra10 running Solaris 7,
but it doesn't work:
tang@bionmr3:~/bin/SpamAssassin 124>./spamassassin < sample-nonspam.txt
Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ../lib lib
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/sun4-solaris /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1
/usr/lo
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>I believe the only check that for instance sendmail could do, is to
>>check if a lookup of the ip gives the hostname, and if the hostname
>>lookup doesnt give the IP, then it can block the message. But in
>>real life, there are so many situations where this is not the case
I recently downloaded SpamAssassin 2.31 and tried
perl -MCPAN -e shell
o conf prerequisites_policy ask
install Mail::SpamAssassin
quit
- and -
perl Makefile.PL
make
make install[as root]
Both processes game me this error message:
cc -
On Wednesday 26 June 2002 11:47 am, Bart Schaefer spake:
> SA 2.20 uses your local.cf scores when running its tests, so some of the
> tests can go wrong. 2.30 and later have fixed this.
>
> If you don't have any local scores that could be causing this, then I'm
> as much in the dark as you.
Tha
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Alternatively, yes, I'd use sourceforge. They're crap, but probably
> the best crap we have ;-)
Or as the old Your Sinclair t-shirts used to say: "It's CRAP! But in a
funky, skillo sort of way"
rOD.
--
"Everybody's screwed up in their own special way!
I'm Mr. Punchy!"
Harry Putnam wrote:
> Am I getting my cvs from the wrong source tree?
>
> Just reupped my cvs today and I see the version still says 2.21.
try:
cvs update -A -d
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber Inc.
Don't miss the IM event of
> "AB" == Andreas Busch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AB> Anyway, I can't really answer your question. All I can say that the
AB> messages are properly delivered without spamassassin and lumped
AB> together with spamassassin.
Well, then SA's idea of your spool file format is not the same as
> "DC" == Darren Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> I found this faintly comical but nevertheless it does seem to be a
DC> bit of an anomoly. Is it correct that Microsoft's Outlook test
DC> message is marked as spam in Razor? (I happen to beef up the
DC> RAZOR_CHECK score more than SA d
> "ON" == Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ON> I wonder how it happened actually. Only way would be that the machine
ON> with 216.139.180.4 connected to your mail server and started the
ON> dialog with HELO and your own mailserver name.
ON> Now I see no reason why in real life one
Am I getting my cvs from the wrong source tree?
Just reupped my cvs today and I see the version still says 2.21.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber Inc.
Don't miss the IM event of the season | Special offer for OSDN members!
Jab
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Weyland wrote:
> Can someone tell me what this means?
SA 2.20 uses your local.cf scores when running its tests, so some of the
tests can go wrong. 2.30 and later have fixed this.
If you don't have any local scores that could be causing this, then I'm
as much in the dark a
hello,
i got qmail-scanner with SA 2.20 working on my mailserver
i got header information on new written email, which tells me, that is spam.
-
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by server by uid 532 with qmail-scanner-1.12 (spamassassin: 2.20. . Clear:SA:1(32.2/10.0):. Processe
John Goggan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: SpamAssassin (score=9.9, required 7,
> FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS (0.382), CLICK_BELOW (1.531), EXCUSE_7 (1.305), EXCUSE_3
> (1.080), DOUBLE_CAPSWORD (1.050), CLICK_HERE_LINK (0.847), MAILTO_LINK
> (0.782), NO_MX_FOR_FROM (1.8), MSG_ID_ADD
> "WRW" == William R Ward writes:
WRW> I just tried to install 2.31 using CPAN.pm and it said I am up to
WRW> date. I have 2.20. When is 2.31 going to be released to CPAN?
try a different CPAN server; I did the upgrade via CPAN on the
duke.edu mirror a few days ago, and it got 2.31.
you
I'm running beta 5.8.0 perl
Getting the latest cvs spamassassin then running
perl Makefile.PL
Gives this curt warning:
reader # perl Makefile.PL
WARNING: PL_FILES takes a hash reference not a string/number.
Please inform the author.
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
W
This is a paste of the error I
encountered while making SpamAssassin.
Can someone tell me what this means?
Thank you,
Weyland
[root@MYBOX Mail-SpamAssassin-2.20]# make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib
-I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/i386-linux -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0 -e 'us
I've just started using MailScanner and SpamAssassin this week. I am using it
site-wide -- trying to reduce spam for all of our users (just a handful
actually). For now, I am just having the subject lines modified. In the
future, I want to be confident enough about the spam detection to actual
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > I had that happen to me too. I had to manually edit the user's spool file
> > and turn the "rom" into "From" to keep the email clients from gaggingn
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Aaron Falk wrote:
> >
> > > I'm trying to integrate Spamassassin into my
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:50:05 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> SA does not add the required LF at the end of the message, and as
>> a result, my MTA (slocal) does not see the end of the message,
>> resulting in messages being lumped together.
>> This has caused me to stop using SA 2.31. You c
Darren Coleman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found this faintly comical but nevertheless it does seem to be a bit
> of an anomoly. Is it correct that Microsoft's Outlook test message is
> marked as spam in Razor? (I happen to beef up the RAZOR_CHECK score more
> than SA default config because I was under t
Ah, thanks for the clarification :) I will amend my RAZOR_CHECK score accordingly.
(And apologies for the HTML mail :( )
Daz
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 June 2002 10:15
> To: Darren Coleman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAt
William R Ward wrote:
> I just tried to install 2.31 using CPAN.pm and it said I am up to
> date. I have 2.20. When is 2.31 going to be released to CPAN?
http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=Mail-SpamAssassin
Maybe you're using a slow/crap mirror?
Matt.
--
Hi,
I found this faintly comical but nevertheless it does seem to be a bit of an anomoly.
Is it correct that Microsoft's Outlook test message is marked as spam in Razor? (I
happen to beef up the RAZOR_CHECK score more than SA default config because I was
under the assumption it was a fool-pro
> are the scores listed on the tests-page up to date?
> The SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is scored -0.054.
> This means that all caps subjects are a sign of trustworthiness !?
Only at a very small level. Basically the new (small) values say that
subject all caps has no strong indication at all of the message b
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> I wonder how it happened actually. Only way would be that the machine
> with 216.139.180.4 connected to your mail server and started the
> dialog with HELO and your own mailserver name.
I think that would actually give (for sendmail) the "apparently f
>I believe the only check that for instance sendmail could do, is to
>check if a lookup of the ip gives the hostname, and if the hostname
>lookup doesnt give the IP, then it can block the message. But in
>real life, there are so many situations where this is not the case,
>that blocking that scen
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, William Porquet wrote:
> I had that happen to me too. I had to manually edit the user's spool file
> and turn the "rom" into "From" to keep the email clients from gaggingn
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to integrate Spamassassin into my RH7.2 sys
53 matches
Mail list logo
