Per Goetterup wrote:
> I've tried whitelisting the sender address '###@reports.spamcop.net' but
> it still tags all the reports with a pretty hefty hit-score.
you should whitelist_to ###@reports.spamcop.net, not whitelist_from.
rOD.
--
"It's a feeling that I can't get through,
I'll just bing
Can anyone tell me why spamd just exits without any msg?
My spamd dies..randomly..so I decided to fire up a non-daemonized
instance and watch it with debug info coming across, hoping to catch the
problem.
-snip-
debug: leaving helper-app run mode
debug: DCC: Listed! BODY: 4 of 99 FUZ1: 4 o
Spamassassin 2.42 packages for Debian GNU/Linux "woody" are now available!
Add the following to your /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://people.debian.org/~duncf/debian/ woody main
Now, apt-get update, and apt-get upgrade. You will have the latest
version of spamassassin for woody. Ideally I will
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:57, McClung, Darren W. wrote:
> I've noticed this too. The version you are seeing first is being reported
> by qmail-scanner, the version you are seeing below is what SA is actually
> reporting. Apparently when you build the qmail-scanner-queue.pl file, it
> embeds the c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Theo Van Dinter outgrape:
> [1 ]
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>> Oct 7 18:31:13 bsod spamd[8690]: Attempt to free non-existent
>> shared string during global destruction.
>>
>> Wondering what thi
Justin Mason Wrote:
> That's exactly what is intended; the idea is that legit senders who
> habitually score just > 5, will eventually get out of "AWL hell" after
> 6-10 messages.
Whoa. This sounds very wrong to me. What's the difference between a legit
sender who always scores 6.0 and a spammer
Justin Mason wrote:
> That's exactly what is intended; the idea is that legit senders who
> habitually score just > 5, will eventually get out of "AWL hell" after
> 6-10 messages.
And how does SA distinguish 'legit senders who habitually score just
> 5' from 'spammers who habitually score just >
Got the dist from python.org
http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.2.1/rpms/rh7.2/python2-2.2.1-1.i386.rpm
Surprised its not in there.
Will get the TAR and load that way.
<>
|-Original Message-
|From: Nix [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:52 PM
|To: Smart, Dan
|
I have it working here, but I am not a linux person and can not speak to if this is
good/bad config. I welcome any sugestions that might help nail down some issues. Can
anyone tell me why I get this in the mail.log file?
spamd[2724]: Still running as root: user not specified, not found, or set
Hmmm:
So the AWL has completely changed from stopping repeat spammers from
getting through and allowing a person who normally sends good email who
sends you that 1 spam email to still get through TO a system where a
spammer who sends consistent spam emails will eventually *break through*
and
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Dan Smart said:
> ImportError: No module named distutils.core
>
> I've loaded a current copy of python 2 (Python 1 is still loaded)
>
> [root@lewis pyzor-0.4.0]# rpm -q python2
> python2-2.2.1-1
> [root@lewis pyzor-0.4.0]# rpm -q python2-tools
> python2-tools-2.2.1-1
> [root@
Sample email header:
X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on lcd
See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html
for details. $Revision: 1.135 $Date: 2002-05-26 21:19:33-07
X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on lcd
See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html
Kenneth Nerhood said:
> I too am seeing very weird things with 2.42 and AWL. I installed a
> fresh system, and then ran a bunch of test spam through it (all from the
> same user). All messages should have scored over 15. The AWL kept
> adjusting them down so that after about 10 message I had
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Jorg B. wrote:
> After doing a `perl -MCPAN -e shell` install I have noticed that 2 of my
> servers use auto-whitelist.dir & auto-white.pag files and the other 2
> servers use just one file called auto-whitelist.
>
> Why is that ?
>
> How can I make su
I too am seeing very weird things with 2.42 and AWL. I installed a
fresh system, and then ran a bunch of test spam through it (all from the
same user). All messages should have scored over 15. The AWL kept
adjusting them down so that after about 10 message I had a negative
score. I'm using sp
Hello,
I have 4 Linux mail servers here, all running Perl v5.8.0 and
SpamAssassin 2.41.
After doing a `perl -MCPAN -e shell` install I have noticed that 2 of my
servers use auto-whitelist.dir & auto-white.pag files and the other 2
servers use just one file called auto-whitelist.
Why is that ?
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> Oct 7 18:31:13 bsod spamd[8690]: Attempt to free non-existent shared
> string during global destruction.
>
> Wondering what this is. Using the current release.
H... It looks like spamd is attempting to exit, and perl spits out
a
> "MS" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> That's a bug in your CPAN.pm. If you upgrade CPAN.pm first that should
MS> go away.
MS> Or use CPANPLUS, which is better/nicer/faster.
I just tried out CPANPLUS. It failed to notice some out-of-date
modules, but otherwise seems to do
I'm trying to load Pyzor. I get an error:
[root@lewis pyzor-0.4.0]# python setup.py build
Traceback (innermost last):
File "setup.py", line 2, in ?
import distutils.core
ImportError: No module named distutils.core
I've loaded a current copy of python 2 (Python 1 is still loaded)
[root@le
This was done because of ENORMOUS amounts of SPAM coming from specific mail
servers. And it was only done after contacting the specific domains
multiple times without any resolve to the problem.
Since SA is working (to some degree) I will unblock your particular domain.
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Seeing the following in my log:
Oct 7 18:31:13 bsod spamd[8690]: Attempt to free non-existent shared
string during global destruction.
Wondering what this is. Using the current release.
Sean
- --
Sean Rima
Chris Santerre said:
> I've already upgrades from SA 2.31 to 2.40. I'm now going to 2.42 and
> figured I'd ask a simple question. What is the easiest method of upgrading?
> CPAN or straight .tar? I can't remember if CPAN will keep my config files
> intact. I saw no upgrade info on the FAQ. Is th
Perhaps I shouldn't be so ready to assist Don Stafford in the future, since
his mailserver is so politely configured to block entire ISPs at the MTA
level.
At 12:08 PM 10/7/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>The original message was received at Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:02 -0400
>from tcp-4-021.evi-inc.com [
Since upgrading from 2.40 to 2.42 we have been seeing some strange stuff
with the AWL. We're getting obvious spam matching numerous rules, including
the AWL, which results in negative scores, some < -90.
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-57.2, required 5,
AWL, C
Hi everybody!
I'm using SpamAssassin and I'm also handling our abuse-mails, which is a
somewhat bad combination because all complaint messages from SpamCop also gets
tagged as spam, which in a way is correct but very unfortunate because then I
won't see them - and that's pretty bad.
I've tried w
Well, you've not said what you've tried so far, but the following should be
the proper procedure.
Note: It is strongly advised that you not edit the files in
/usr/share/spamassassin unless you absolutely have to (ie: if unwhitelist
is broken)
Edit /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf if you want
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>
>>Probably easiest to go via the CPAN shell, as that way your dependencies
>>get met automatically. Also make sure you're not using SpamAssassin for
>>email delivery, as that will break things with 2.4x.
>
>
> I'm having a m
I've noticed this too. The version you are seeing first is being reported
by qmail-scanner, the version you are seeing below is what SA is actually
reporting. Apparently when you build the qmail-scanner-queue.pl file, it
embeds the current SA version into the code. When you upgrade, this doesn'
> "BS" == Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> Probably easiest to go via the CPAN shell, as that way your dependencies
>> get met automatically. Also make sure you're not using SpamAssassin for
>> email delivery, as that will break thing
Modify /var/spool/qmail-scanner/qmail-scanner-queue-version.txt
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 08:30:41AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's my relevant system info
> freebsd-4.7 RC#0/qmail 1.03+ldap patch /ezmlm0.53+idx patch
> qmail-scanner modification 1.14/spamassassin 2.42 (upgraded from 2.4
> "CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CS> I'll prbly continue with the .tar as I feel more in control. Just wondering
CS> what others do.
There's zero difference from the .tar and the CPAN install. All CPAN
does is automate the fetch, extract, make, make test, make install o
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Probably easiest to go via the CPAN shell, as that way your dependencies
> get met automatically. Also make sure you're not using SpamAssassin for
> email delivery, as that will break things with 2.4x.
I'm having a minor struggle with that, at this ve
Here's my relevant system info
freebsd-4.7 RC#0/qmail 1.03+ldap patch /ezmlm0.53+idx patch
qmail-scanner modification 1.14/spamassassin 2.42 (upgraded from 2.41)
tmda 0.62
After upgrading to 2.42 I'm seeing the following headers in the mail
message. You'll notice it reports v2.41 when reportin
Chris Santerre wrote:
> I've already upgrades from SA 2.31 to 2.40. I'm now going to 2.42 and
> figured I'd ask a simple question. What is the easiest method of upgrading?
> CPAN or straight .tar? I can't remember if CPAN will keep my config files
> intact. I saw no upgrade info on the FAQ. Is thi
On Monday 07 October 2002 08:04, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I've already upgrades from SA 2.31 to 2.40. I'm now going to 2.42 and
> figured I'd ask a simple question. What is the easiest method of upgrading?
> CPAN or straight .tar? I can't remember if CPAN will keep my config files
> intact. I saw n
I just upgraded (2.40 - 2.42)using the .tar and it was dead simple.
Three commands, then restarted spamd. Life is happy and no errors
showing in my log file.
Terry Poperszky
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Chris Santerre
Sent: Monday,
Hi
I want to setup a Postfix-server with Spamassassin, but so far I havn't had much luck,
by reading the docs, this mailinglist(including archives) and searching the net.
Could anyone provide a working example configuration of postfix and spamassassin
(using spamc/spamd), or link to a howto on
I've already upgrades from SA 2.31 to 2.40. I'm now going to 2.42 and
figured I'd ask a simple question. What is the easiest method of upgrading?
CPAN or straight .tar? I can't remember if CPAN will keep my config files
intact. I saw no upgrade info on the FAQ. Is this worth adding to it?
I'll pr
> "JM" == Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JM> Randy Bush said:
>> freebsd -stable
>> spamassassin 2.41
>> spamasassin -r
>> results in
>> razor2 report failed: No such file or directory Razor2 reporting requires aut
>> hentication at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAss
SpamAssassin is working great!
BUT - - - - -
I cannot get my whitelist or blacklist file to work. The
almost-certainly-spam and probably-spam files (being created in
/var/spool/mqueue) does have some valid emails
The local.cf has the path to the lists, but SA is ignoring them.
Could someo
In emacs rmail what varieties of different techniques are there for
sorting your favorite correspondents from the mix?... leaving the hundreds
of spam commercials. A filter for the campus computer system puts subject
lines and headers on many of the hundreds of spam commercials
with http://spamass
I use spamassassin found on CVS. It works well for me. The new scores in
2.42 are the same with CVS or it's better to use 2.42 instead of 2.50 ?
Thanks
-- http://www.fastmail.gr
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to ge
42 matches
Mail list logo
