On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:01:36PM -0400, Jay Swackhamer wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > My DSL ISP (aka "the phone company") now offers Brightmail-based spam
> > filtering. It caught 8 of the 12 spam messages I've received since it
> > was activated (SA caught all 4 of the
GotMail is a tool that retrieves Hotmail messages and delivers it either
to a folder or to an email address.
I've set it up so it delivers to my local mail server, which is then
parsed by SA.
I would like to increase the score by 2-3 points when it comes from
Hotmail - as I mostly receive spam t
At 08:30 PM 6/29/2002 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson said:
>| >That is surely a PATH problem. If you use an absolute path to SA in
>| >the procmailrc does it work then?
>|
>| Yes,
>
>Yes it works? If it works, then ...?
THEN I have to get frigging SA to install correctly, and I've run out of
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Jay Swackhamer wrote:
> I have a few users whose dialup ISPs also use Brightmail. They
> commented how Spamassassin works *better* than Brightmail, which seems
> to block legitimate mail. They also mentioned Brightmail offers no way
> to retrieve blocked mail (at least, thei
Heh--that reminds of something Brightmail has been doing--they've been
posting apparently OT posts to various newsgroups with their honeypot
addresses with the intention of getting harvested by spammers. A bit of a
bass ackwards approach to spam fighting-- spamming in order to fight
spam!!
On S
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> My DSL ISP (aka "the phone company") now offers Brightmail-based spam
> filtering. It caught 8 of the 12 spam messages I've received since it
> was activated (SA caught all 4 of the rest, plus an Outpost.com mailer
> that scored 14.5 -- I'd add them to
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 21:22, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 04:57:25PM -0700, Dan Allen wrote:
> | Michael Leone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> | > On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
> | > > I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
> | >
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> [...] an Outpost.com mailer that
> scored 14.5 -- I'd add them to my whitelist but I'm too interested in
> seeing what score they're going to rack up next).
I've actually been interested in and enjoying seeing what some of my legit
commercial mail scores. My OfficeDepot.c
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 06:22:47PM -0600, Randy Cassingham wrote:
| At 07:13 PM 6/29/2002 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson said:
|
| >What MTA are you using? It is most likely a problem with its config.
| >Do virtual domains get delivered via procmail?
|
| It's sendmail with procmail installed.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 04:57:25PM -0700, Dan Allen wrote:
| Michael Leone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| > On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
| > > I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
| > > my rear in the hole. I switched over from junkfilter to
| > > sp
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 10:23:53PM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I still see no evidence of a message-id being inserted into debug
> logs to allow tracking. Or any evidence of time stamping.
>
> This bug was supposed to have been subsumed and corrected by another
> one, but these two factors have
At 07:13 PM 6/29/2002 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson said:
>What MTA are you using? It is most likely a problem with its config.
>Do virtual domains get delivered via procmail?
It's sendmail with procmail installed. The virtual domains' mail is
processed via virtualdomain/etc/procmail -- NOT /
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 05:27:31PM -0600, Randy Cassingham wrote:
| My earlier query (attached below) brought no replies, so I'll ask it in a
| different way. I have a Rehdat 7.2 server that hosts a number of different
| domains. I'd like to use ONE copy of SA to filter all mail for all domains
When a spam get's caught, meaning the number of starts is greater
than the number of hits required, I get a nice breakdown of each
part of the message that got rated...but when the spam is less than
the number of hits, I don't get that pretty report. Is it possible
to always get that report, even
Michael Leone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
> > I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
> > my rear in the hole. I switched over from junkfilter to
> > spamassassin and thought all was working, until I send myself a
> > me
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
> I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
> my rear in the hole. I switched over from junkfilter to
> spamassassin and thought all was working, until I send myself a
> message from an external yahoo account I had. All loc
My earlier query (attached below) brought no replies, so I'll ask it in a
different way. I have a Rehdat 7.2 server that hosts a number of different
domains. I'd like to use ONE copy of SA to filter all mail for all domains
on the server, but etc/procmailrc is ignored when mail comes in for one
I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
my rear in the hole. I switched over from junkfilter to
spamassassin and thought all was working, until I send myself a
message from an external yahoo account I had. All local messages
are getting tagged by spamc but anything t
What's really funny is how SA has been tagging McAfee's bulk mailing
about their SpamKiller product as Spam. "Tired of spam? Get the email
you want and nothing else. McAfee.com SpamKiller stops spam cold!"
Geez... Spam everybody with messages about stopping spam. Now there's
a lesson that hasn
-Forwarded Message-
Sorry; I hit SEND before the mail log got posted.
NOTE: running "spamassassin -P" *does* tag as spam.Running "spamc" I get
no headers - no "X-Spam-Status", no "X-Spam-Level", none of the normal
output of a SA check. Mail log does show spamd getting called.
Mail log
On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 14:39, Jeremy A. Oddo wrote:
> I'm still new to all this, but I just got my SA working last night. If
> you are using vpopmail, I may be able to help. One thing that you may
> want to try is to direct spam directly into spamc like this:
>
> /usr/bin/spamc -f -u vpopma
EarthLink employs Brightmail too, but they have not purchased the virus
filtering package from them yet. Their spam filtering is ok-but I
would expect it to be better for as much as EarthLink pays for the
service-and considering that Brightmail deploys honeypots for every
network they have as a c
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 11:12:41AM +0100, Vaclav Barta wrote:
> I agree the new version looks nicer and easier to read, but is it
> *meant* to be read?
Yes. (IMO)
| > Personally, I want to parse it, and the whitespace just gets in
| > the way... I know it's *possible* to parse it, but I'm laz
I'm using SA on my mail gateway, and I'm trying to figure out a way to
make all spam with a score of 12 or higher sent to /dev/null
automatically. Right now, my mailertable reads:
spis.netesmtp:[mail.spis.net]
I have tried to use:
spis.netprocmail:/etc/procmailrc
My procmailrc f
My DSL ISP (aka "the phone company") now offers Brightmail-based spam
filtering. It caught 8 of the 12 spam messages I've received since it was
activated (SA caught all 4 of the rest, plus an Outpost.com mailer that
scored 14.5 -- I'd add them to my whitelist but I'm too interested in
seeing what
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > # $head is a Mail::Header object, fyi.
> > my $SAstatus = $head->get("X-Spam-Status") || "No, tests=\n";
> >
> > # Figure out if the message is considered spam or not
> > $SAstatus =~ s/\n\t+\s+//g; # unfold long s
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> # $head is a Mail::Header object, fyi.
> my $SAstatus = $head->get("X-Spam-Status") || "No, tests=\n";
>
> # Figure out if the message is considered spam or not
> $SAstatus =~ s/\n\t+\s+//g; # unfold long sections
> $SAstatus =~ s
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 11:12:41AM +0100, Vaclav Barta wrote:
> I agree the new version looks nicer and easier to read, but is it
> *meant* to be read? Personally, I want to parse it, and the whitespace
> just gets in the way... I know it's *possible* to parse it, but I'm lazy
> - is there some co
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> cpan> o conf make_install_arg LOCAL_RULES_DIR=/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin
Hmm, you might also need:
cpan> o conf make_arg LOCAL_RULES_DIR=/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin
(I long ago hacked my copy of Makefile.PL and have been installing the CVS
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 12:26:07AM -0400, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
> and make sure /usr/bin/procail is symbolically linked in your smrsh
> directory (May be located at /etc/smrsh or /usr/bin/smrsh).
I've never seen /usr/bin/smrsh, but I have seen /usr/adm/smrsh and
/usr/adm/sm.bin. It's also /var/
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Michael C. Berch wrote:
> So I went to install SA 2.31 for my account over there, and thought I
> had done so, but I didn't realize that you apparently have to be root to
> install SA. Is this true? If so, why?
In general, perl modules try to install themselves with all
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to suppress the listing of
individual spam phrases in the terse report?
Having the X-Spam-Report header scroll past for two pages is somewhat
amusing, but not otherwise particularly helpful, and I believe it's been
mentioned here before that some MU
Hi,
after upgrading SA from 2.20 to 2.30, I noticed a change in the
X-Spam-Status header - it used to have everything on one line, i.e.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=16.4 required=5.0
tests=NO_REAL_NAME,PLING,ONE_HUNDRED_PC_FREE,PORN_4,MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,WEB_BUGS,SLIGHTLY_UNSAFE_JAV
33 matches
Mail list logo
