here is another email i recieved that was tagged as SPAM... I'm hoping
someone sees something that can give negative points to this guy .. this is
my realtor telling me about two houses...
I'm just wondering if anyone can see a pattern in this email to knock down
the score a bit... It was not a s
I'm just wondering if anyone can see a pattern in this email to give
negative points... It was not a spam, and just _barely_ broke the barrier.
I'd rather modify/add rules than change the default threshold of 5. I've
copied the exact email as I received it into this message (with email
addresses o
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:12:48PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> >
> > Where can I get more informaiton on that? I *really* need "-m" to
> > work. It semed to have been reliably on Linux w/Perl 5.6.1.
> >
> > If "-m" is hopeless
Paulo Ney de Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our sys-admin here in Berkeley upgraded SpamAssassin this week to
> version 2.42 and all of a sudden it stop working form me!
> After a lot of research I found that the culprit was an EMPTY file named
> "rules" in my home directory that was causing
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached spam just barely sneaks under SA 2.42's radar because of a
> fake PGP signature line in an HTML comment.
I already improved this rule back on August 23rd, but someone made a
broken CVS commit that reverted the improvement (and maybe more, b
The attached spam just barely sneaks under SA 2.42's radar because of a
fake PGP signature line in an HTML comment.
I haven't tested it against 2.43 yet (Matt, CPAN?) so maybe this is a
false alarm, but it appears to be a deliberate SA-spoiler.
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> > OK, here's 2.43. This is strictly a bug-fix release. Download at
> >
> > http://spamassassin.org/downloads.html
> >
> > (Er, at least, download it there in abou
I'd just do:
perl -mCPAN -e shell
install HTML::Parser
and allow it to install dependencies as needed. If you set your cpan to not
prompt for dependencies you might have to change that option.
At 03:23 PM 10/18/2002 -0400, Ryan wrote:
I am reading through the requirements, and see the need to
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 15:23, Ryan wrote:
> I am reading through the requirements, and see the need to
> install HTML::Parser. Does anyone have a guide on installing
> this? I tried to pull the individual modules down, but the
> in turn have requirements. I am strapped for time, and can't
> wander
As root, run "perl -MCPAN -e shell"
>From there, "install HTML::Parser"
If it has any other requirements, you can tell the CPAN system to install
those, as well.
On 18 Oct 2002, Ryan wrote:
> I am reading through the requirements, and see the need to
> install HTML::Parser. Does anyone have a
Aaron Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way to whitelist based on Bcc? If there is a user that is
> whitelisted based on whitelist_to it works for To: and Cc: but not Bcc.
> This is my alternative to user_prefs not working.
>
> Thanks again in advance!
Nope. The Bcc: header is ne
Seems to be fairly effective though.
I might just remove my whitelist setting for this list
- Original Message Follows -
> On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 18:38, useni teejee wrote:
> > DEAR FRIEND,
> >
> > I AM A DIRECTOR OF THE CONTRACT SECTION OF THE
> > NIGERIAN TRANSPORT AND AVIATION HEADQ
I am reading through the requirements, and see the need to
install HTML::Parser. Does anyone have a guide on installing
this? I tried to pull the individual modules down, but the
in turn have requirements. I am strapped for time, and can't
wander through source at the moment.
Thanks for any info,
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> > to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> > NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amo
Hello, I've been migrating my SpamAssassin table from one database/user to a
more proper user, database, and table-name, and am having a complication with
the documented user_scores_sql_table...
Using this in the local.cf, for PostgreSQL:
user_scores_dsn DBI:Pg:dbname=dbmail;hos
Is there a way to whitelist based on Bcc? If there is a user that is
whitelisted based on whitelist_to it works for To: and Cc: but not Bcc.
This is my alternative to user_prefs not working.
Thanks again in advance!
-Aaron
--
/"\
\ /ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail and
/ \
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:17, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> > to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> > NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a mod
> "TVD" == Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TVD> Overall, I don't get very many of these -- do other people see more?
TVD> I get maybe 1 or 2 a month if that (out of ~1700 spams/month).
I get tons. At least 5 to 10 a week. But then, I've actually
received two of these via postal
I'm using 2.50 CVS which is more closely related to 2.43 and tracks that
way as well. But what part of the envelope is the return address and IP
being grabbed from? The first receipt in the header? Or the one that
your system is looking at the time it grabs it.
-Original Message-
From:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amount of nonspam so they don't wind up
> scoring high
I think you're missing the point. You can do the normal make install, then
just choose which users' mail gets filtered. Having multiple installs of
the SA program files is an administrative nightmare come time to upgrade.
Darren
-Original Message-
From: Johnny L. Wales [mailto:johnny@;m
The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amount of nonspam so they don't wind up
scoring high enough. They are also mutating heavily enough to avoid razor
in many
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> OK, here's 2.43. This is strictly a bug-fix release. Download at
>
> http://spamassassin.org/downloads.html
>
> (Er, at least, download it there in about 15 minutes, it's still
> gronking. ;)
>
> Changes:
>
> - core-dump bug
Aye, merely upgrading SA won't help, since your AWL database already has
heavily biased scores.. it will just stop more from being created.
delete your awl database and let it start from scratch. This should be in
the ~/.spamassassin directory for the user running SA.
At 09:15 AM 10/18/2002 +02
What version of SA are we talking about?
if it's 2.43, the AWL tracks both the from address AND the orginating IP.
it would be highly unlikely that a spammer could forge such a thing and
drive their score up.
Can you provide some more detail about which SA you are running? there's
major change
This just sailed through my filter:
From: "archieboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: urgent and confidential business proposal
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:04:54 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encod
Fine, see if I contribute anymore to the list.
The reason I don't want to install it sitewide is not only the concerns I
listed about false-positives, but also because we're a tiny company who
can't afford licensing fees for Razor, etc.
Anyway, script is hereby public domain. If you don't like it
Folks-
I am at an impasse here. I don't see what I am missing. Any ideas on why
spamd isn't reading my ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs files?
Bueller? Bueller?
> I have spamd running as spamd -d -u filter. I just need some users to
> be able to change the required_hits variable. For some reason,
Should SA have a minimum message size check to counter an AWL score. I
had someone sending test messages, but because their AWL score was 23.5
it was tagged as spam. I'm still scratching my head on how they got
such a high AWL score.
My thought on that matter is that if a spammer was to send t
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Kenneth Chen wrote:
> Hey Justin:
>
> Thanks for your answer! I'm curious about something else, though: does
> your procmail recipe say (in words) "Take whatever has 5 stars OR more and
> pipe it to /dev/null?" I'm wondering about that last part with the *.*.
That's what t
I received a request to post this description in plain text. Here it is (sorry for the
duplication):
JOB DESCRIPTION
TITLE: Software Engineer-Spam Filtering
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
LOCATION: Burlingame, California
PAY STATUS: 1099 Contract Position, Hourly rate upon receipt of inv
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:42:09AM -0400, Louis Bohm wrote:
> Is there any way to add CR/LF to each line of the report template? I am
> seeing this in the report:
> SPAM: * 0.4 -- HTML-only mail, with no text version SPAM: SPAM: End of
> SpamAssassin results
>
> I would rather each spam sc
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, local.spamassassin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:58:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike
> Burger) wrote:
>
> >The answer to this question is in the SA FAQ at www.spamassassin.org
>
> Damn! Sorry, I normally do look in places like that first.
No problem. I'm just glad that
Is there any way to add CR/LF to each line of the report template? I am
seeing this in the report:
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results SPAM: 12.80 hits, 10 required; SPAM:
* 2.6 -- Subject contains lots of white space SPAM: * 1.3 -- From: does not
include a real name SPAM: * 0.3 -- From: con
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:58:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike
Burger) wrote:
>The answer to this question is in the SA FAQ at www.spamassassin.org
Damn! Sorry, I normally do look in places like that first.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
35 matches
Mail list logo
