* Ryan Cleary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 1) A program has already bound to the spamd port (783 by default),
> possibly another copy of spamd. Depending on what operating system
> you're running, you may be able to check this with the "netstat"
> command.
I run netstat, no prog is
At 04:29 AM Friday, 7/5/2002, Mike Burger wrote -=>
> So, then, if I'm supposed to only use spamassassin -r to manually report
> spam, how in heaven's name do I use Razor, in conjunction with SA, to
> check for spam?
If you installed razor, SA will use it. Check the test results in a
messag
Bart Schaefer writes:
> Last time you wrote, I got the impression you weren't getting any procmail
> log output. Oh, that was when you were writing to the procmail list ...
> sometimes it gets a little confusing to read both lists. You wrote:
Yeah, initially I traced my problems to procmail, bu
I don't think the default whitelist entry for bugtraq is doing what it's
supposed to do. In the default /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf file:
# bugtraq: can contain malicious Javascript etc.
whitelist_from *@securityfocus.com
I'm on bugtraq, and only messages sent by the moderator are
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 07:02:49PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Putting on a Razor centric user hat and personae: It is taking away
> choice since I expect those messages to be spam verified by a user and
> not be a false positive generated by a tool. If you are automatically
> reporting to razor a
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Eric S. Theise wrote:
> Besides, if spamc is called for all incoming mail to any domain -- the
> procmail log shows that that's so -- doesn't that suggest that the global
> procmailrc file isn't being ignored, but that someting is breaking down
> between spamc and spamd?
Last
On Friday 05 July 2002 06:55 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Which version of spamassassin do you have installed? I've been using -m
> since 2.20 ...
Ooops. The spamd manpage in my manpath must be old; my bad.
--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll b
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Right idea, wrong execution. Local lockfiles are ignored on recipes
> > that do not deliver to files. You need a global lockfile
>
> Are you sure? For which procmail version?
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I've gotten the "extraneous local lockfile ignored"
w
> > [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would run in
> > parallel and procmail would run in parallel they would converge at the
> > spamassassin step and only one of those would be running at a time.
> >
> > :0fw:spamassassin-run.lock
> > | spamassassin -P
>
> Right idea
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> | FORGED_JUNO_RCVD:
>
> This is bugged. I rescored it to 0 when my parents' (juno) mail
> triggered it. I don't know what is wrong with that rule, but I
> dropped it from my setup.
I'm at least partly responsible for that one, since I forward
Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
> If your sendmail setup is anything like the one someone with a Raq
> recently posted, then you need to put that recipe in the procmailrc
> for each virtual domain. The setup ignores the global procmailrc for
> virtual domains.
I've worked on RaQs, and although the
> You know, I'm suprised at how little spam gets sent through mailing
> lists.
You are not subscribed to the right lists! At least half of my spam
comes to me by way of mailing lists. May I direct you to a few such
as bug-gnu-utils@gnu, or skywagons@airbase1, etc. I will say that
sourceforge l
On Friday 05 July 2002 05:44 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Spamd forks on each connection, so this won't lighten the load unless you
> use the -m option to limit the number of forked copies. I use -m 3 on a
> P233 with 128MB and that seems to deal with fetchmail floods just fine. On
> the other han
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 the voices made Matthew Cline write:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2001 09:56 pm, BASSY OKON wrote:
>
> > (b) That you would treat this transaction with utmost secrecy and
> > confidentiality.
>
> Which is why you sent this to a mailing list...
>
> You know, I'm suprised at how little
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 04:56:25PM -0700, Eric S. Theise wrote:
| I am using sendmail with virtual hosting
| Mail to me at the root domain is processed properly
| External mail to my other users, all of whom get email at virtual domains,
| does not contain the tags.
If your sendmail setup is
> > But... If they wanted to use SA they would use SA. Since they are
>
> You assume that people using SA or Razor do so by choice and/or are
> technically savvy enough to set them up.
By choice, yes. Your point about technically savvy is interesting
since I think both SA and Razor have simil
On Friday 05 July 2002 03:54 pm, Joseph Barillari wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
> spamassassin processes.
If you're using Qmail to deliver mail locally, you can create the control file
"concurrencylocal", put in an interger, and it will neve
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I run spamassassin as a procmail filter.
>
> [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would run in
> parallel and procmail would run in parallel they would converge at the
> spamassassin step and only one of those would be running at a ti
On Wednesday 04 July 2001 09:56 pm, BASSY OKON wrote:
> (b) That you would treat this transaction with utmost secrecy and
> confidentiality.
Which is why you sent this to a mailing list...
You know, I'm suprised at how little spam gets sent through mailing lists. It
wouldn't be that hard to w
> So, then, if I'm supposed to only use spamassassin -r to manually report
> spam, how in heaven's name do I use Razor, in conjunction with SA, to
> check for spam?
If you have razor installed then spamassassin will automatically
detect that and use it. If it is not installed then it won't.
> I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
> spamassassin processes.
This is one idea that surfaced while reading your question. I am sure
there are better ones.
> I run spamassassin as a procmail filter.
If you are using the typical .procmailrc rule to pipe through to
I am still trying to figure out why spam-assassin is not working the way
I expect it to on my system.
I am using sendmail with virtual hosting, procmail for local delivery,
and spamd/spamc. I run freeBSD. I have users with active shell accounts
and users with nonexistent shells and nonexistent
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 the voices made Daniel Rogers write:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:19:36AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> > Anyone seen this one and knows its history...?
>
> (Weird spam deleted)
>
> That one has been around for a while now.
Sorry, should have googled it.
> Here's a link
Hello.
I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
spamassassin processes.
I run spamassassin as a procmail filter. It's a fine program, except
when I have a bunch of messages waiting. In that case, here's what
happens.
1. I type `fetchmail'. Fetchmail starts downloading ~5
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:19:36AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> Anyone seen this one and knows its history...?
(Weird spam deleted)
That one has been around for a while now. Here's a link to someone who
actually contacted the guy.
http://pucklass.envy.nu/timetrip.html
Dan.
---
Anyone seen this one and knows its history...?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:54:03 GMT
Subject: Time Travelers PLEASE HELP!!! 15548
Hello,
If you are a time traveler or alien and or in possession of government or alien
technology I need your help! My entire
> | Here is what I found:
> |
> | DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06: This rule misfired on an email that one of my
> | customers sent. Her date was set using Pacific Time while
> being in Eastern
> | time so her clock was set 3 hours ahead to correct the date. From my
> | experience with novice users and
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 11:25:54AM -0400, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
| (Geocrawler is so difficult to search thru archives!).
It is horrible, isn't it? It doesn't even display threads!
| Here is what I found:
|
| DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06: This rule misfired on an email that one of my
|
>Hans Vallden wrote:
>> I wonder if anyone has made any attempts to install Spamassassin to
>> Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? I would be VERY interested in doing so.
>> Heck, I might even pay some money for specific instructions.
>
>http://rhumba.pair.com/ben/docs/sa.html
Rod, Tony, Ian and all oth
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 11:11:04AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> But... If they wanted to use SA they would use SA. Since they are
You assume that people using SA or Razor do so by choice and/or are
technically savvy enough to set them up.
> not using SA when it is available to them but are using
> and it adds the message as spam for people who aren't
> fortunate enough to use SA but use Razor instead.
But... If they wanted to use SA they would use SA. Since they are
not using SA when it is available to them but are using Razor it leads
me to believe that they do not want to use it. Th
Hello,
I've been using spamd/spamc for a few weeks now, and I've noticed that spamd
stop mysteriously to log client connections after 4 to 6 hours. That means
that I have log for 4 to 6 hours after I have started spamd, end then there
are no logs at all. Would you have an idea of what is happenin
Hello all,
I have been off the list for awhile but have been using SA. With the recent
upgrade to 2.31 I have discovered a couple of rules that don't always work:
DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06
FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS
FORGED_JUNO_RCVD
Has there been any discussion on these? (Geocrawler is so difficult to
s
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 01:40:49AM -0400, Ryan Cleary wrote:
> > "bind: Cannot assign requested address at /usr/sbin/spamd line 135."
>
> This probably means one of two things:
>
> 1) A program has already bound to the spamd port (783 by default),
> 2) 783 is a reserved port, meaning that yo
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 the voices made Ives Aerts write:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:32:31PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> > Hey, people start to send spam directly to spamassassin-talk... I wonder if
> > that'll help their business or not... ;)
>
> I wonder if they also sent it to spamassassin-
Thanks for the reply, this is the output to the 'make test'
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e"
"test_har
ness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/db_based_whitelistFAILED test 3
Failed 1/3 tests, 66.67% okay
t/forged_rcvd...ok
t/nonspam..
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:32:31PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> Hey, people start to send spam directly to spamassassin-talk... I wonder if
> that'll help their business or not... ;)
I wonder if they also sent it to spamassassin-sightings :^).
Cheers,
-Ives
_
37 matches
Mail list logo
