Which brings me to a question... what exactly did they purchase? If
they purchased Deersoft, does that give them the right to enforce the
trademark and prevent the open source Unix style SpamAssassin product
from using that name? Do they hold patents that could shut down the
open source SA pr
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:32, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
> thesaurus out for that one! :-)
And boy, SA is just a blacklist and their product will "add applications
that detect spammers even before they appear on black l
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:32, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
It even has the mandatory "Enterprise" so they can hike the price way,
way up there ;)
Argh, now my head hurts from all the empty phrases and buzzwords.
--
Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Duncan Findlay write:
DF> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:32:57PM -0500, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
DF> > Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DF> > will be named...
DF> >
DF> > McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DF> >
DF> > And they
Can someone explain me what these headers are meaning :
X-Spam-Warning: SpamAssassin ( http://www.spamassassin.org/ ) says this message is SPAM
X-Spam-Score: 10.2 (**)
I found them in a spam I have received, see attachment.
Thanks
--
Maxime Ritter|French Computer Geek
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:18:44PM -0500, Interservers Administration wrote:
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
Yeah, but "killer" makes me think of some guy named bubba with a
baseball bat. "assassin" is much more sexy. Like using it makes you
involved in some stealthy life of intrigue.
Speak
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Diffenderfer, Randy write:
DR> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DR> will be named...
DR>
DR> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DR>
DR> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
DR> thesaur
I was actually thinking the same thing when I heard the announcement on
Cnet earlier..
We know better though don't we ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Diffenderfer, Randy
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:33 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:32:57PM -0500, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
> will be named...
>
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
> thesaurus out
Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
will be named...
McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
thesaurus out for that one! :-)
---
This s
Thanks Steve and Adrian! both seem to work! :)
Tim
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
Hello everyone,
Does anyone know why I'm getting deferral:
spamc_returned_temporary_failure/ in my Qmail logs? What is the
solution?
Sincerely,
Abel Jeffcoat
On 2003-01-06 15:46:59 -0500, Jerry Rasmussen wrote:
> How do you configure SpamAssassin to return spam to the sender?
You don't. Google for bouncing spam and get a clue.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
---
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Justin Mason write:
JM> well, looks like someone's updated their scanner already ;)
Too bad they could code quicker than they could think. =/
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Mike Saunders said:
> Every time you load spamassassin you have to load the entire perl
> interpreter and it's environment. It has to scan it's library pathis (I
> believe...) and you may have more in place now. That takes time. Plus
> you're running a lot of other processes
Hi All,
I have SA and SendMail up and running as my email gateway relaying all
our mail to our exchange server. In this configuration is there anyway
to have user preferences for whitelists/blacklists? Or is my only
option to use global preferences?
Thanks for any information.
Troy Sorzano
The comment above the snippet causing the problem is dated Dec 27th
2002, so probably not.
The waitpid loop was probably added to correct a zombie accumulation
problem, but it had a more powerful effect than intended. It solved the
zombie issue, but also prevented multiple child spawning.
-- Nat
At Mon Jan 6 19:38:37 2003, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
> So this spam just sneaked into my inbox with 4.9 points. I hate that, it's
> the first one in days.
>
> Looking at it, it turns out that a bunch of bogus Received headers are
> fooling Spamassassin into quitting with the DNSBL checks before it
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Jerry Rasmussen write:
JR> How do you configure SpamAssassin to return spam to the sender?
Impossible, both the returning and the configuring SA to do it part.
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
Let me be on of many to say, that it's a bad idea. Most spam addresses are
fake, and at best, you send it to an email address that is valid, but didn't
send the spam. And you create more useless net traffic. It's best to
report it to Razor, SpamCop and the like.. or use the trusty Del key...
-
Chris,
there are some patches now in the CVS version which do a lot of stuff with
virtual users; might be worth taking a look.
--j.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
__
well, looks like someone's updated their scanner already ;)
--- Forwarded Message
Date:Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:57:19 -0500
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V I R U S A L E R T
Our viruschecker found
Does this bug exist in 2.43 too? If so, I have to recompile. :(
- Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Neulinger, Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamd only forking single child
This change should fix it:
In
At Mon Jan 6 15:42:32 2003, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> could be altered to that:
>
> M(F)IM(])E-(*/
> *)V(y)e(7)r(*)s(U*0)i(*LZ)o(H)n(.):(l)
> 1(:*=).0
> Content-Type: mul(26)t(fH*)ip(|*)a(***)rt(*)/
> mi(/*j)x(8)e('M)d;
> (<|)bo(*,)u(1**)nda(D)r(L+K)y=TFICLMGJ
>
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:07:42PM -0800, Skye Poier wrote:
> I get a very large delay in testing the message:
> However if I use the -L option there is no delay:
>
> I'm running this on a server with a permanent, direct connection to the
> internet. I'm not seeing any other problems (mail, web,
That was the problem. Thanks!!
Skye
Word on the street is Theo Van Dinter said:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:07:42PM -0800, Skye Poier wrote:
> > I get a very large delay in testing the message:
> > However if I use the -L option there is no delay:
> >
> > I'm running this on a server with a pe
Sorry, I forgot to say in the test where I have the Ctrl-T's, there is
about a 30 second delay. Also, I tried the -L flag with dns_available
yes in my user_prefs, and no delay.
Skye
Word on the street is Skye Poier said:
> Hello Assassins!
>
> Fresh spamassassin 2.43 install here, with perl v5.
Hello Assassins!
Fresh spamassassin 2.43 install here, with perl v5.8.0 on FreeBSD
While doing the test from the INSTALL doc for use with procmail, doing:
% spamassassin -D -t < test.notspam > notspam.out
I get a very large delay in testing the message:
debug: using "/usr/local/share/spamassas
How do you configure SpamAssassin to return spam to the sender?
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAI
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Ray Dzek write:
RD> Umm...Since this thread started on another list, could somebody please
RD> explain, in english, the significance of the munged header?
Just reread the first one to this list, it was by me and it included the URL
to the story.
The significa
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Tobias von Koch write:
TvK> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=1997874
It makes sense; it's a positive thing for both NetAss and Deersoft... the
community OTOH... who knows; most likely a lot of PR resulting in "how can I
use t
something I heard last night.. this just re-affirms it today.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030106/sfm029_1.html
if it's old news, my mistake :)
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Tobias von Koch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just found this on REUTERS:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=1997874
>
> and in German
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-06.01.03-003/
>
> Wow, this one killed me.
I don't know about you guys,
So this spam just sneaked into my inbox with 4.9 points. I hate that, it's
the first one in days.
Looking at it, it turns out that a bunch of bogus Received headers are
fooling Spamassassin into quitting with the DNSBL checks before it gets to
the real meat -- increasing num_check_received to 5 r
Umm...Since this thread started on another list, could somebody please
explain, in english, the significance of the munged header?
Thanks.
Ray
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Hoyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:08
Hello,
since 4 weeks I use Spamassassin 2.43 with the option "auto-whitelist".
In my local.cf I have added the lines :
auto_whitelist_path/var/spool/spamassassin/auto-whitelist
auto_whitelist_file_mode 0666
and i called spamd with -a.
I got by "check_whitelist" only the answer
5
These "HTML-comment in spam sign"-thingies are spreading... =(
Received: from www.airconworld.net ([210.114.228.88])
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: ±èÈ£Áø<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 03:38:25 +0900
Content-Type: text/html; charset="euc-kr"
Subject:
Hi,
just found this on REUTERS:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=1997874
and in German
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-06.01.03-003/
Wow, this one killed me.
tobias
--
===
.deSecure, Bahnhofstr.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Hoyle write:
TH> I'm more worried about what happens when a virus starts using this - how
TH> many mailers
TH> are able to block executable attachments when the mime data is munged this
TH> badly?
What really worries me is what happens when people start re
I have several mailing lists (approved subscribers only) and have noted
that SA has tagged a couple of messages as *SPAM** for various
reasons. The messages are legitimate.
What is the rule(s) I can add to local.cf to let all postings go through
untagged.?? This is a little embarrassin
Fixed my own problem. :-)
I edited the Makefile and changed the following FROM:
INSTALLMAN1DIR = /usr/man/man1
...
INSTALLMAN3DIR = /usr/man/man3
TO:
INSTALLMAN1DIR = ~/sausr/man/man1
...
INSTALLMAN3DIR = ~/sausr/man/man3
And everything installed fine as non-root.
-Chris
On Mon, 2003-01-
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Justin Mason write:
JM> (Open proxies are easy to test for automatically upon mail receipt,
JM> you see. Might even make a good SpamAssassin test some day, as long
JM> as we could rig up some kind of online test-result collator so each
JM> site only gets tested
I've asked about this before, but could never get a straight answer, so
I figured I'd try again...
my problem:
I use courier and maildrop, and have virtual users. The virtual users
are all owned by the same user/group, which obviously has a different
homedir than the virtual users. I also have
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony L. Svanstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 January 2003 15:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] MIME-headers with comments in them
>
>
> Any bets on how long it'll take before some of the major
> spammers start
Hi,
I'm upgrading from 2.41 to 2.43 and installing as non root.
I followed the documentation and did make like this:
perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=~/sausr SYSCONFDIR=~/saetc
However, I get the following error.
Warning: You do not have permissions to install into /usr/man/man1 at
/usr/lib/perl5.6/5.6
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> Just found that many spammers are using base64 to encode their text/html msg body to
>avoid the radar. Does spamassassin detect such tricks? I did some tests and looks
>like the answer is no...
The answer is yes. What tests did you do
This change should fix it:
Index: spamd.raw
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/spamassassin/spamassassin/spamd/spamd.raw,v
retrieving revision 1.159
diff -u -r1.159 spamd.raw
--- spamd.raw 1 Jan 2003 17:06:37 - 1.159
+++ spamd.raw 6
Tony L. Svanstrom said:
> (Somewhat stolen from a posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the procmail-list)
Well spotted by the author of that virus!
> M(F)IM(])E-(*/
> *)V(y)e(7)r(*)s(U*0)i(*LZ)o(H)n(.):(l)
gross. Since I have seen *absolutely 0* of these atrocities in legit
mail, I suspect it'll m
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:33:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just found that many spammers are using base64 to encode their text/html msg body to
>avoid the radar. Does spamassassin detect such tricks? I did some tests and looks
>like the answer is no...
Can't fully answer your question
Chris Santerre said:
> Due to many FPs, I'm not going to use RBLs for the company. Makes sense.
BTW in case this hasn't been mentioned: the OPM proxies list and NJABL
proxies list are both very good, with 0 FPs, as long as you limit it to
*just* proxies (not relays etc.).
(Open proxies are eas
Anyone know of any reason that spamd would only for a single child?
stracing the process I'm seeing it spin in wait4, but it's not ever
forking more than one child process to handle incoming requests.
Needless to say this is having a bad impact on performance.
Running with 2.50-cvs.
-- Nathan
--
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:42, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> (Somewhat stolen from a posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the procmail-list)
>
> http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/viruses/indepth/junkmail.xml >
>
> a header like that:
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>
(Somewhat stolen from a posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the procmail-list)
http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/viruses/indepth/junkmail.xml >
a header like that:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=TFICLMGJ
could be altered to that:
-
Great advice from everyone here. Interesting to see how admins take
different approaches to the same problem.
Due to many FPs, I'm not going to use RBLs for the company. Makes sense.
I sent out a message to the users to send me the email addresses of people
they deal with overseas. I'll check
Hi,
Just found that many spammers are using base64 to encode their text/html msg body to
avoid the radar. Does spamassassin detect such tricks? I did some tests and looks like
the answer is no...
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:47, MostlyHarmlessnj wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to write a rule based on the message-id header field, but I'm
> confused on the expression useage. I'm using SA 2.43 and I'm trying to
> match on if the Message-Id: header contains @aol.com> at the end of it.
> The
| header AOL_MSG_IDMessage-ID/(@aol.com)/i
Try this:
header AOL_MSG_IDMessage-ID =~ /\@aol\.com/i
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
__
Hi all,
I'm trying to write a rule based on the message-id header field, but I'm
confused on the expression useage. I'm using SA 2.43 and I'm trying to
match on if the Message-Id: header contains @aol.com> at the end of it.
The reason for me wanting this rule is because as more people switch
Good morning.
Firstly, happy new year, thanks for the help in 2002.
Now the problem.
Whitelist in local.cf does not seem to be working.
Shouldn't the whitelisted address have 0 hits?
I have restarted the spamd PID, no luck
header below.
Received: from mogwai.mtnns.net (diana [209.212.109.209])
59 matches
Mail list logo
