Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> I think that might be *way* too enticing for spammers. The solution is
>> to just exempt SAtalk and other spam-related mailing lists from spam
>> filtering.
Jan Korger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not a good solution, it's a workaround. I understand the
> distin
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0600, JSM Technologies wrote:
> Is there a way to place the score in the Subject line
>
>
> "* SPAM * 7.5"
RTFM:
subject_tag STRING ...(default: *SPAM*)
Text added to the "Subject:" line of mails that are considered
Is there a way to place the score in the Subject
line
"* SPAM * 7.5"
Jan Korger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-02 22:04:49 +0100]:
> > Anyway, the spam that Bob forwarded was going to be marked
> > as spam no matter how you handled the SA headers! He said it was
> > assigned a score of 42.5 when he originally received it. 42.5.
>
> He said so, but this must have in
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Steve Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It looks like you're looking for SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS. See if these messages
>>> are triggering that rule. I /dev/null anything that hits on that one.
>
> Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Non
Martin Radford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-02 20:27:54 +]:
> At Sat Nov 2 19:31:56 2002, Christian Salzer wrote:
> >
> > Just wondering, why SA-Talk mails, which contains "quoted" spam are
> > reported to razor?
>
> People auto-reporting to Razor based solely on the SA score, rather
> than
--On Saturday, November 02, 2002 4:21 PM -0500 Theo Van Dinter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:04:49PM +0100, Jan Korger wrote:
BTW: Is there a simple command stripping the SA results from a mail as
done by 'spamassassin -r'. I want to reprocess my false
positives/negatives
Jan Korger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore I suggest adding a rule with a negative score assigned matching
> spam reports in message bodies. This is especially usefull for SAtalk,
> better than whitelisting as the latter one would also all spam sent to the
> list address to pass. (This is
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:04:49PM +0100, Jan Korger wrote:
> BTW: Is there a simple command stripping the SA results from a mail as
> done by 'spamassassin -r'. I want to reprocess my false
> positives/negatives on a regular basis to see whether changed rules will
> better SA. I reckon it's not a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Nov 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Jan Korger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Therefore I suggest adding a rule with a negative score assigned matching
> > spam reports in message bodies. This is especially usefull for SAtalk,
> > better than whit
"Steve Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It looks like you're looking for SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS. See if these messages
>> are triggering that rule. I /dev/null anything that hits on that one.
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> None of those posted show having hit that rule.
I can't t
At Sat Nov 2 19:31:56 2002, Christian Salzer wrote:
>
> Just wondering, why SA-Talk mails, which contains "quoted" spam are
> reported to razor?
People auto-reporting to Razor based solely on the SA score, rather
than actually verifying whether or not the message really is spam
first.
Martin
--Am Samstag, 2. November 2002 10:29 -0700 Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
schrieb:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=15.2 required=5.0
tests=ASCII_FORM_ENTRY,BIG_BUCKS,BULK_EMAIL,CHECK_OR_MONEY_ORDER,
CLICK_BELOW,COMPLETELY_FREE,FINANCIAL,FREE_MONEY,
KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NO_COST,NO_EXPERIEN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Jan Korger wrote:
> I'm thinking of something linke
>
> body SA_REPORT_START /SPAM:\s-+ Start SpamAssassin results -+/
> body SA_REPORT_END /SPAM:\s-+ End SpamAssassin results -+/
> body SA_REPORT_LINE /SPAM:/
> body SA_REPORT_C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not surprisingly, your message quoting the spam message got caught by SA
as well. Someone else noticed that the phrases inside "SpamAssassim
results" are often caught by the rule that produces them. This again is
obvious ("BODY: Free money!" will allwa
Just FYI for the regex guys :)
Hopefully we can detect this type in the future. it only scored a 1.4!!
..Keep up the great work.. loving spam assassin.
---
Jeremy Kister
www.jeremykister.com
PGP: http://www.jeremykister.com/jeremy/
This piece of spam I found simply amazing. It is well written. The
author appears to be a very intelligent marketer. But his target
audience is the newbie spammer! As well written as it is I am sure he
will sucker more people over to the dark side.
This message was trapped by a friend and forw
"Steve Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It looks like you're looking for SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS. See if these messages
> are triggering that rule. I /dev/null anything that hits on that one.
None of those posted show having hit that rule.
For example: The message with subject:
1O. 14-Oct [ 2
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:35:18 -0500
Matthew Prentice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the same question about whether Razor is working for our
> installation. When I run the spamassassin -tD < sample-spam.txt it does
> say Razor is detecting the message. However, when I run the message
> through
I have spamassassin working and using mysql... but now im stuck on this..
>8)&0xFF; } } /* * STOP AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM */ if($status == 0) { // login
>successful, redirect to index.php, checking to see // if redirect should use SSL or
>not. $username = $post_username; session_register("usernam
20 matches
Mail list logo
