Re: [SAtalk] (no subject)

spamassasin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-10-13 19:43:36 +0300]: > X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC (2.7 points) RBL: DNSBL: sender is Confirmed Spam Source > > Why only 2.7 points and not something higher to delete mails that are known > spam? The sender may be a confirmed source of spam. It may be an open rel

Re: [SAtalk] different results at diff times

Aram Mirzadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-10-13 11:59:01 -0400]: > I have a piece of SPAM that is jumping from 0.8 to 5.0 and back to 0.8 > each time I ran a (-t) test without any modifications to my pref file. > > The offending rules that change are: X_OSIRU_SPAMWARE_SITE to > X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC an

[SAtalk] nightly spam cleaner (I LOVE NINJAS)

I love Spam Assassin! I just installed it for my ISP, and it rules. I wrote a little perl script which, when in cron, will nuke old spams from user accounts. Here is the script: http://mail.monkeybrains.net/nightly_spamkill.txt and MD5 (nightly_spamkill.txt) = 36eb9870667b8aef23b4afa581b32

Re: [SAtalk] Consistency between releases

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Can anyone give me any ideas why SA is so inconsistent between different > releases? For example I picked a spam to test a new installation of SA > with. It had scored over 10 on a previous install. When the message > arrived on my new box, it was scored at only 8.4

[SAtalk] spamd responded with bad string 'debug: Number of lines: 8'

Hi, I have this with SA 2.42 or 2.50 I upgraded from 2.41. I installed the tar.gz which i compiled. I get this when I run spamd with parms -a -d -c. so spamd doesnt work as this, all spam gets thru. when I enable debugging with -D, its works ! Im totally lost here. any ideas ? I mean its ok,

Re: [SAtalk] Why doesn't whilelist catch this?

On Saturday, Oct 12, 2002, at 19:05 US/Pacific, 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? > From dailycomic#[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

[SAtalk] Consistency between releases

Can anyone give me any ideas why SA is so inconsistent between different releases? For example I picked a spam to test a new installation of SA with. It had scored over 10 on a previous install. When the message arrived on my new box, it was scored at only 8.4. I downgraded to 2.40 and tried i

[SAtalk] (no subject)

X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC (2.7 points) RBL: DNSBL: sender is Confirmed Spam Source Why only 2.7 points and not something higher to delete mails that are known spam? --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://th

[SAtalk] different results at diff times

Hi, I have a piece of SPAM that is jumping from 0.8 to 5.0 and back to 0.8 each time I ran a (-t) test without any modifications to my pref file. The offending rules that change are: X_OSIRU_SPAMWARE_SITE to X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC and back. I'm running 2.41 on RedHat Linux 7.3 with fetchmail and e