[SAtalk] NEW Newbie Question spamd message

Am running platform FBSD-4.7 Unix with Sendmail-8.12.6 Spamass-Milter I'm a brand new newbie on use of SA-2.43 since installing a couple of days ago. I've noticed in the mail log files the following every time it checks an incoming message: Dec 28 18:01:37 sage-american spamd[69658]: Still runnin

[SAtalk] GA run

reminder: The rule freeze is on the 31st (ie. 2002-12-31 GMT ;) Any test rules remaining get commented. Start your mass-checks at that point, and get them in by the 4th. I'll then collate S/Os across all corpora, and suggest the rules to drop, we have a back-and-forth, and then I'll sed tho

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, December 28, 2002 3:10 PM Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: > >> I deleted the exit code for now, but I'm interested in fixing the >> permission denied mess

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:18:09PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > Hrm...I'm wondering if sending the permission denied message is an > invitation for them to really lay it on me. In other words, they know > they've hit a valid address, but I'm refusing their crap. Maybe > they'll use my address

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> I deleted the exit code for now, but I'm interested in fixing the ML> permission denied message so it doesn't bounce back. Would you have any ML> ideas about how to do this? I guess that's a question for the Procmail ML> mailing list,

Re: [SAtalk] config for Razor

On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 01:35:32PM -0600, Mike Saunders wrote: > debug: Razor2 is available Ok, good, it found it. > So, if I read that right, I need to add a -H /etc/razor to spamd's > startup, is that correct? If you want a global setup out of /etc/razor, yes. -- Randomly Generated Tagline:

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:42 AM Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: >> Actually, one quick addendum. It successfully bounces the messages, but >> *I* get a bounce back to me saying that relaying was denied to their spam >> m

Re: [SAtalk] config for Razor - RESOLVED

Thanks for the help! I guess I missed that debugging step. I've been reading the docs over and over again and I think my eyes are getting a bit tired. DNS is available, razor is working. The only question I have left is about RBL lists. I see that it can be done, but where are the RBL's I wan

Re: [SAtalk] config for Razor

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > The easiest way is to run "spamassassin -D < message". The debug > information will tell you about razor. > Well, I ran that, and I did find this: debug: Razor2 is available debug: entering helper-app run mode debug: leaving helper-app run mode R

Re: [SAtalk] config for Razor

On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 10:48:59AM -0600, Mike Saunders wrote: > Dec 28 10:44:02 samba spamd[92590]: connection from cannonball.method.cx > [10.0.0.7] at port 50238 > Dec 28 10:44:02 samba spamd[92602]: processing message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for cyrus:1002, expecting > 2897 bytes. > Dec 28 10:44:

Re: [SAtalk] config for Razor

At 10:48 AM 12.28.2002 -0600, Mike Saunders wrote: >Hello, > First of all, SpamAssassin is a WONDERFUL project. It was easy to >get going and works like a champ. I love it. > > I'm wondering about configing spamassassin to use Razor. I'm >running SpamAssassin 2.43, which I built from

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.50-cvs

Yes, but like I said, if they were from someone I didn't know, it would have been spam. Think of it this way, it's spam that I want. The email that I get, isn't always personal chit-chat. it's bands trying to promote their shows and sometimes merch. So maybe 10% of the emails that I get, if you

[SAtalk] config for Razor

Hello, First of all, SpamAssassin is a WONDERFUL project. It was easy to get going and works like a champ. I love it. I'm wondering about configing spamassassin to use Razor. I'm running SpamAssassin 2.43, which I built from CPAN. Razor is built and installed, but I'm not seein

Re: [SAtalk] Any spam using In-Reply-To/References-headers?

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 the voices made Daniel Quinlan write: DQ> "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DQ> DQ> > Has there been any confirmed cases of spammers using DQ> > In-Reply-To/References-headers (to avoid spamfilters)? DQ> > DQ> > Ie, using those headers to make their spam look like

Re: [SAtalk] SPAMD zombie childs Bug?!

Stefan Seiz said: > Of course I can ;-) I just fetched: > http://www.spamassassin.org/devel/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.50.tar.gz > did a make, then make install and it reported: > > So it seems I got the latest version (as of the website) already. > Do I need to grab it directly via CVS and not via www

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:54 PM Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: ML> >> 0 ML> > * ^X-Rot-Version: ML> > { ML> > EXITCODE=77 ML> > :0 ML> > /dev/null ML> > } ML> Actually, one quick addendu

[SAtalk] a few extra rules

Yo! I just thought some might be interested - here are my custom rules, and my custom scores. I get about 1 false positive per week, out of 2000 mails or so (mostly mailing lists). > ok_languages bs ca cz da de en es fr gd it sv tr > > # I assume OE to always add a Message-Id: h

Re: [SAtalk] Any spam using In-Reply-To/References-headers?

"Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has there been any confirmed cases of spammers using > In-Reply-To/References-headers (to avoid spamfilters)? > > Ie, using those headers to make their spam look like > a reply to something you've written on some list/news- > group. According to

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.50-cvs

"Brian May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm very happy with the bayes and other additions for 2.50-cvs.. I've been > running it for the past 2 weeks... and I have had only 3 false positives > (which where spam, but from sources I wanted email from). Can't wait for > the release! If you wanted

Re: [SAtalk] Is this a spam?

Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure. The headers are obviously legit. The addressing is in > the To field. The only shady thing about it is the recipient list. > > To the best of my knowledge, I don't know the sender and I don't know > anyone else in the recipient list.