On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:24:38AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> I've been hit by this too, and I can't help but think that these blacklists do
> more harm than good. Spammers will easily move on, but for the small non-tech
> company it could take a week of no business before they're back
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joseph Barillari wrote:
>
> 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 ~50 messages.
[snip]
> Sitting here feeling foolish, I note that usually I can read.
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO should have been a tipoff.
>
> I put the list in WHITELIST_TO since so many of the messages
> discussing spam were getting filtered. Is there a better approach?
Not really. I put the list in all_spam_to, in fac
Hi all,
I was wondering if there was someplace where we could have a new rule
tested automatically against both spam and non-spam corpus to see how
effective it is. Is this something everyone must make on their own or
there is some email/web interface to such a service someplace?
Here are som
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin 2.31 with spamass-milter 0.1.1 on sendmail.
Every time spamc is invoked, spamd returns an error log like
spamd[9374]: bad protocol: header error: (closed before headers)
Beside if that, it's working.
What happens to spamd and waht can I do to repai the problem?
By
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 07:27:07PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
| On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 the voices made CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson write:
|
| > But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine that
| > this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all day abo
I want to stop SA from marking up headers with a warning of
X-BAD-FORMAT-WARNING: RFC 2822 or some such, and leave the headers
unaltered. I found the area in NoMailAudit.PM where this is
implemented, but clearly my limited Perl skills are kicking my butt,
as I can't seem to find a way to modify it
Matthew Cline wrote:
>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 ma
> "BS" == Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> 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 woul
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Ollie Acheson wrote:
> tests=INVALID_DATE,DEAR_SOMEBODY,US_DOLLARS,US_DOLLARS_3,
> RISK_FREE,LINES_OF_YELLING,SUPERLONG_LINE,
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO,DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX
> version=2.31
>
> How come mine didn't catch this?
It's in a
Sitting here feeling foolish, I note that usually I can read.
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO should have been a tipoff.
I put the list in WHITELIST_TO since so many of the messages
discussing spam were getting filtered. Is there a better approach?
Ollie
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 03:55:33PM -0400, Ron Smith
> Well, if you're autoreporting, I would agree. But we're agreeing that
> you shouldn't autoreport. What we're disagreeing about is whether you
> should report the spam after you verify that the message is in fact spam.
Ah... Somewhere along the way I took a turn into the weeds. Thanks
for wi
Actually, SA didn't work for me. Here's the headed it added:
tests=INVALID_DATE,DEAR_SOMEBODY,US_DOLLARS,US_DOLLARS_3,
RISK_FREE,LINES_OF_YELLING,SUPERLONG_LINE,
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO,DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level: ***
How come mine didn't catch this?
Ollie
P.S. I admit in a
On Saturday 06 July 2002 19:27 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 the voices made CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson write:
> > But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine
> > that this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all
> > day about MS
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 the voices made CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson write:
> But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine that
> this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all day about MS
> not following RFC standards but in the end the customer still gets
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joseph Barillari wrote:
>
> Would spamc/spamd respond better to an inrush of mail? Or is there a
> switch to flip to make procmail or sendmail process the mail serially
> -- not by re-queuing it, but by using some form of locking such that
> when one spam
But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine that
this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all day about MS
not following RFC standards but in the end the customer still gets
legitimate email tagged as Spam and is not happy and they don't care about
RFC
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 10:05:20AM -0400, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
| > > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a few emails that were
| > > | legitimately sent BCC.
| > >
| > > Was this an outhouse bug? ( 'To: ' -- not a
| > > valid header per RFC (2)822)
| > >
| > > I haven't
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx stated:
> The three bug lists for fileutils, shellutils, textutils became so bad
> that the maintainer decided to moderate them. Now those are low spam
> noise primarily because each message is scanned by a human (either Jim
> or myself) and out of every 15 or 20 sp
BTW, I just submitted this one to bugzilla as bug
#519 just in case anyone is planning to look
at this.
--->Ed
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
CertaintyTech - Ed HendersonSent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 9:36
AMTo: satalkS
> > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a
few emails that were> > | legitimately sent BCC.> >>
> Was this an outhouse bug? ( 'To:
' -- not a> > valid header per
RFC (2)822)> >> > I haven't checked the rule itself,
BTW.>> Yes. It was in the form 'To:
'.>I have registered this o
> I'm at least partly responsible for that one, since I
forwarded (but did> not invent) the procmail recipe on which it is
based. Can you send along> the header of a legitimate juno
message?>>Here you go:Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Delivered-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Received: (qmail 28710
Hi,
> Yes, spamd indicates that a connection was made from localhost, but
> there's no followup log entry for the virtual domain addresses; email
> to me generates 'clean message' or 'identified spam' followups, but not
> so for the virtual users.
Just one question, are you sure that your virtua
23 matches
Mail list logo
