On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:05:12PM -0400, Joe Berry wrote:
> whitelist_from *@unitedmedia.com
> whitelist_from *@myucomics.com
> whitelist_from *@comics.com
>
>
> Here's an exact copy of the email itself. Any idea why my whitelist
> isn't working?
Sure, you haven't whitelisted anything in th
Hello,
I'm having problems with a particular email which keeps getting
rejected as spam by SA. It's daily comic strip that my wife
subscribes to. My local.cf file has the following in it:
whitelist_from *@unitedmedia.com
whitelist_from *@myucomics.com
whitelist_from *@comics.com
Here's an
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Simon Matthews wrote:
>
> > That is essentially what spamcop does. It looks for a ratio of spam to
> > non-spam from an IP address and adds the IP address to the
> > bl.spamcop.net zone if the ratio exceeds a certain threshold.
>
>
Note that this was not a razor1 issue only. I have two installations
of SA on two different servers. One runs SA 2.31 and razor1, the
other 2.42 and razor2 and both choked hard on Thursday night.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jason Brunette wrote:
> I, like the others who posted here today, noticed man
I have Redhat 7.3. They ship both python and python2 so that they don't
break dependencies for things that depend on python 1.x.
[nice@mothlight nice]$ rpm -q python
python-1.5.2-38
[nice@mothlight nice]$ rpm -q python2
python2-2.2.1-2
I seem to remember that the pyzor install script looks for th
Hi All,
I loved the Xerox OCR reply but seriously would something like Vipul's
Razor help catch this stuff? Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm
currently using spamcop to reject known spammers from sendmail 8.12.5.
>From there, I use MIMEDefang as my sendmail milter along with SpamAssassin
a
Great. I will look for 2.43. In the meantime, off goes AWL.
Ollie
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:15:10PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Yes, the 2.42 AWL had a new feature that turned out to be a bug. It's also
> a problem that's already been recognized and is already fixed in CVS.
>
> http://www.hug
Yes, the 2.42 AWL had a new feature that turned out to be a bug. It's also
a problem that's already been recognized and is already fixed in CVS.
http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1071
Relevant quotes:
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-10-08 06:51 -
Quite frankly, I don't see any tangible benefit from implementing that
feature into SA. Not to be negative, but the proposed change has several
major flaws I can see:
1) custom-built-to-avoid-filters spam is not restricted to small emails,
you can make a large one that is also tailored to avoid
Same here. Lots of obvious spam, many rules invoked, but AWL letting
the dirt in. Very disappointing.
Ollie
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:07:36PM -0500, Rob.Remus wrote:
> Since upgrading from 2.40 to 2.42 we have been seeing some strange stuff
> with the AWL. We're getting obvious spam matching n
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Simon Matthews wrote:
> That is essentially what spamcop does. It looks for a ratio of spam to
> non-spam from an IP address and adds the IP address to the
> bl.spamcop.net zone if the ratio exceeds a certain threshold.
Does anybody happen to know how spamcop determines the a
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jeremy Kister wrote:
>
> While coding, I had a thought... Would it be a good idea to Auto-White
> list/Auto-Black list Mail Servers themselves? While most of us don't have
> access to MAPS, it might be a good idea.
>
That is essentially what spamcop does. It looks for a rat
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Eric Mings wrote:
>
> The only mail I have ever received with this listbuilder tag _is_ spam.
> Not much of it but all spam.
>
Some legitimate mailing lists do use listbuilder -- however listbuilder
does not seem to have a double opt-in mechanism and hence it is open to
abu
At Sat Oct 12 19:05:58 2002, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> The attached spam came through with only 3.3 points using SA 2.42. It's
> the second message I've received in three days which obviously came from
> the same source and scored under the default of 5 points. Even when I
> was running with a re
This was suggested to me the first time I posted the problem to this
list. I think you do have a valid point, it would be something to look
at... but if that were my problem, wouldn't the issue be constant, and
constantly recurring?
As it stands, it simply happens occasionally. and it looks l
This was suggested to me the first time I posted the problem to this
list. I think you do have a valid point, it would be something to look
at... but if that were my problem, wouldn't the issue be constant, and
constantly recurring?
As it stands, it simply happens occasionally. and it looks l
The attached spam came through with only 3.3 points using SA 2.42. It's
the second message I've received in three days which obviously came from
the same source and scored under the default of 5 points. Even when I
was running with a required_hits of 4, these still would've snuck
through.
Two
Seems spamassassin is deducting for mail allegedly sent through some
microsoft service. Rule triggers as:
SPAM: LISTBUILDER(-1.9 points) RAW: Sent through Microsoft's
ListBuilder service
The only mail I have ever received with this listbuilder tag _is_ spam.
Not much of it but all spam.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> > > here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
> > >
> > > However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> > > the graphs. :-)
> >
> > Remove 'gauge' from the o
Hi all,
I've noticed that the rule identifying Outlook Express as a non-spam
MUA actually has a (small) positive score. My guess is that this is
because many spammers fake an X-Mailer header claiming that the
message was sent with OE. Frequently, though, they don't fake all of
the headers that O
* Jonathan Nichols ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
>
> However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> the graphs. :-)
Remove 'guage' from the mrtg config. guage is for "curren
Hi,
I've a quick scan through the list, but can't find a solution to my
install problem.
I'm a bit if a Linux newbie, but willing to learn.
When tried to install SA I got the following (using perl Makefile.PL
PREFIX=~/sausr SYSCONFDIR=~/saetc )
[admin@simplyhosting Mail-SpamAssassin-2.42]$ W
> >
> > Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> > here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
> >
> > However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> > the graphs. :-)
>
> Remove 'gauge' from the options line, and it should be more sane.
>
I tried that, and
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 13:08, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> While coding, I had a thought... Would it be a good idea to Auto-White
> list/Auto-Black list Mail Servers themselves? While most of us don't have
> access to MAPS, it might be a good idea.
Great idea. One of the reasons I implemented my own whi
24 matches
Mail list logo
