On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, JP Kelly wrote:
> I am runningv2.43 and I am looking forward to upgrading to 2.5.
> I am running it on OS X with exim.
> I would like to upgrade via CPAN.
> What is the likelihood of the upgrade breaking my configuration?
> How different is 2.5 from 2.43.
Assuming you store y
I am runningv2.43 and I am looking forward to upgrading to 2.5.
I am running it on OS X with exim.
I would like to upgrade via CPAN.
What is the likelihood of the upgrade breaking my configuration?
How different is 2.5 from 2.43.
---
This SF.NE
Attached is a Screenshot of Mozilla 1.2.1. I 've been a Mozilla
advocate since the first Mac build. The option has been there since
HTML mail support was implemented from what I remember. Many use it.
I personally recieve lots of HTML mail, since it can default to it if
someone sends you an
Two important notes:
1. We fixed a bug in the IP address parsing that was reducing the DNS
rule hit rates, so we just retagged the tree (same tag name as before).
If you now do a "cvs update -dP" from the top of your
CORPORA_SUBMIT_VERSION_2_5_0_CHECK1 tree, you'll get the updates.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score
> higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did
> not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the
> exception of n
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:06:32PM -0500, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
> Where are the logs? It tells me it cannot find spam.log.
Have you run mass-check? It generates spam.log and ham.log.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I spaced out on lingo." - Prof. Wills
msg12203/pgp0.pgp
Descrip
Mozilla can send HTML only email, and will if it recieves only HTML.
I have several people in my address book setup as HTML mail. They only
recieve that, and when they send me something, it's sent as HTML (only).
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
Can you name me one legitimate email client th
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:07:16PM -0500, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you name me one legitimate email client that sends HTML 'ONLY' emails?
Some newsletters are sent in HTML only.
--
Duncan Findlay
---
This SF.NET email is sponsor
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 10:13, Stephane wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Our company has got a large number of mailboxes (more than 2) and is looking at
>implementing spamassassin for its spam filtering. Of course with this number of email
>addresses the servers receiving the internet email will be big dua
Hi,
Can you name me one legitimate email client that sends HTML 'ONLY' emails?
I can not for the life of me think of one.
Mozilla, Outlook, Eudora etc all send text and HTML versions of email.
Regards,
Rick
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J. Accettura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EM
Where are the logs? It tells me it cannot find spam.log.
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de
Yevgeniy Miretskiy
Enviado el: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:46 PM
Para: Spam Assassin
Asunto: [SAtalk] hit-frequencies output question
This is a header
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:45:32PM -0500, Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote:
> OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
>4451 1900 25510.427 0.000.00 (all messages)
> 100.000 42.6870 57.31300.427 0.000.00 (all messages as %)
>
> What should I look for to d
This is a header output of hit-frequencies program in masses dir:
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
4451 1900 25510.427 0.000.00 (all messages)
100.000 42.6870 57.31300.427 0.000.00 (all messages as %)
What should I look for to determine wh
Perhaps the SA website should have "success stories". I would nominate
this one :)
Would be good for individuals like Stephane.
Paul C wrote:
Stephane,
We have over 10,000 active mailboxes on our mail server, and we successfully
implemented SpamAssassin + Amavis on it. We run Postfix on
Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:43:35 -0500:
> it
> will become more common to send just HTML mail since it's quicker, and
> smaller in size.
>
gulp ??? Adding 1k to a normally 0,1k mail and then removing 0,1k is
"smaller in size"?
> Relying on mail format is silly
>
Well be
Most popular email clients are starting to default to HTML mail.
Considering how widely used it is these days it's really starting to
push legitimate emails towards the edge. The average legitimate email
today seems to be about 3.0... and those are emails made in Outlook,
Mozilla, and other p
Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:46:02 -0500:
> Why focus and rely so heavily on what we
> know will be causing this, rather than work to perfect spam detection in
> ways that ONLY spammers can be detected.
>
Why throw away one proven method which catches more spam than all the
Stephane,
We have over 10,000 active mailboxes on our mail server, and we successfully
implemented SpamAssassin + Amavis on it. We run Postfix on FreeBSD. The
server is a DELL dual xeon 1.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM, 130Gb SCSI RAID5.
Amavis runs as a content filter (all email gets scanned by it).
SpamAssas
At Tue Jan 14 22:34:34 2003, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
>
> Also I just had a thought, does SA add any (alot) of points if it detects it
> as two mailers (say a spammer trying to get his message past SA)?
There's a whole set of rules in the 2.50 CVS version which compare the
format of the message-id
Why not just make it an option for the mass-check app?
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:03 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] Re: [SAdev] NOTICE: mass-che
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 23:35 CET Rich Puhek wrote:
>[...]
> FYI: anonymous CVS on sourceforge is currently down. (as of around 14:00
> Pacific time on Jan 14th, 2003).
>
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=2352&group_id=1
>
> Now that I know where the status page is, I won't b
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Let the mass-checking begin!
(snip)
- There will be a single mass-check from a first CVS revision this week
lasting until Friday 23:59 GMT
FYI: anonymous CVS on sourceforge is currently down. (as of around 14:00
Pacific time on Jan 14th, 2003).
http://sourceforge.n
Also I just had a thought, does SA add any (alot) of points if it detects it
as two mailers (say a spammer trying to get his message past SA)?
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
Enviado el: Tuesday, January 1
Michael Moncur wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:30:16 -0700:
> I rarely receive legitimate HTML-only email either,
>
I'd like to extend this to
"I rarely receive legitimate HTML email"
can we have CTYPE_HTML und BODY_CONTAINS_HTML rules or something like
this? (some spammers simply don't advertise
Maxime Ritter wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:26:13 +0100:
> http://www.netlibre.info/~airmax/user_prefs
>
Thanks, interesting stuff!
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
Sorry, but I'm WAY WAY behind in my list reading :)
http://spamassassin.org/dist/procmailrc.example
You could replace spamassassin with spamc if you so are inclined.
I fixed my problem, server rebooted over weekend and lost a route :)
And YES, I top post :P
> -Original Message-
> From
Roman Katzer wrote:
Hi Stephane,
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 19:13:26, you wrote:
I would be interested in knowing if there is a similar large company (>
5000 mailboxes) having successfully implemented spamassassin in order to
share the experience -- we had a successful pilot running and wo
Hi Stephane,
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 19:13:26, you wrote:
> I would be interested in knowing if there is a similar large company (>
> 5000 mailboxes) having successfully implemented spamassassin in order to
> share the experience -- we had a successful pilot running and would like
> to go li
I used the default port.
but the main fact is that the daemon isnt running.
Do you have any clues?
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 03:48 PM
To: Segree, Gareth
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd with -u no
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:46:02PM -0500, Robert J. Accettura wrote:
> 1. Just posed a bunch of rule ideas. Should keep you busy for a while
> ;). Deductions mostly at this point. But I plan to work on some good
> spam detection ideas later tonight.
If you can do me a favor -- go back to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
> Folks --
>
> Don't forget -- mass-check will *not* automatically remove SpamAssassin
> markup. This is a big deal with the new report format (recently added to
> 2.50), so if you're scanning folders with marked-up messages, please run
> "spamassassin -d
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:20:03PM -0500, Segree, Gareth wrote:
> I have upgraded from SA 2.41 to 2.43 but when I run spamd it says that it
> was daemonised but when I do a netstat -an there is nothing bound to port
> 768
We use 783, not 768.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"perl is awesome, perl
1. Just posed a bunch of rule ideas. Should keep you busy for a while
;). Deductions mostly at this point. But I plan to work on some good
spam detection ideas later tonight.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
It depends on your client. I've seen 30 byte text messages take 4k in HTML.
But why
Folks --
Don't forget -- mass-check will *not* automatically remove SpamAssassin
markup. This is a big deal with the new report format (recently added to
2.50), so if you're scanning folders with marked-up messages, please run
"spamassassin -d" on them and rescan before submitting those results.
I have upgraded from SA 2.41 to 2.43 but when I run spamd it says that it
was daemonised but when I do a netstat -an there is nothing bound to port
768
spamd -d -L -i 0.0.0.0 -x -u mail
if I remove the -u it defaults to nobody
spamd -d -L -i 0.0.0.0 -x
the mail user exists using id 8 is it that s
Hi list,
We've been testing SpamAssassin 2.43 with Exim 4.10 and 4.12, using a
slightly modified version of:
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/config_docs/exim4_spamassassin.html
When spamd is running; spamc returns a 0 exitcode, and the message is
scanned and delivered. When spamd is not running, spam
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:43:35PM -0500, Robert J. Accettura wrote:
> out there. The reality is as more clients become HTML mail clients, it
> will become more common to send just HTML mail since it's quicker, and
> smaller in size. One should also note, that all HTML capable email
It depend
At 06:30 PM 1.14.2003 +, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>Jack L. Stone said:
>> Ed, your info about Formmail is not correct and is very stale. In fact
>> there are more than 2 Million users and the security hole was patched. That
>> doesn't mean that some have not kept up to date and don't know about th
Several other mail clients can be set to reply with HTML only, if it
receives HTML. I use Mozilla mail which can operate as such. If
someone sends me HTML mail, without being prompted, I will reply in
HTML mode (only HTML) as to preserve formatting. If I haven't emailed
the person before, an
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:20:36PM +, Chris Willard wrote:
> There is very little text in the messages so they are missed by
> spamassassin. Is there a rule that I can use to spot when messages are
> addressed like this?
You mean something like SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS? :)
--
Randomly Generated Tag
Hi All,
I keep getting spam that sends to multiple address in the form;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc.
There is very little text in the messages so they are missed by
spamassassin. Is there a rule that I can use to spot when messages are
addressed like this?
--
Re
Jack L. Stone said:
> Ed, your info about Formmail is not correct and is very stale. In fact
> there are more than 2 Million users and the security hole was patched. That
> doesn't mean that some have not kept up to date and don't know about the
> breach of security caused by using the older versi
...of the business section of the San Jose Mercury News this morning.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/4943148.htm
Ray Dzek
Network Operations / Helpdesk
Specialized Bicycle Components
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take you
Hello,
Our company has got a large number of mailboxes (more than 2) and is looking at
implementing spamassassin for its spam filtering. Of course with this number of email
addresses the servers receiving the internet email will be big dual or quad processors
boxes with lots or memory (plan
Ed Weinberg said:
> I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
> Back around 1987 a 15 year old kid named Matt Wright wrote a FormMail
> script. The original insecure version is still in use on a million
> sites (no exageration). Spammers figured out how to send email th
Maxime Ritter said:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> > I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score
> > higher.
>
> It did also surprise me...
>
> What I also figured out is that Outlook is unable to send a HTML mail
> without plain tex
| Back around 1987 a 15 year old kid named Matt Wright wrote a FormMail
| script. The original insecure version is still in use on a million
| sites (no exageration). Spammers figured out how to send email through
| it.
I wrote my own formmail.pl script which e-mails the spammer and the abuse@
a
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 16:08, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > While the Date clearly is a bug in the webmail client and should be
> > reported there,
> >
> >> - HTML only message with no text
> >> - Outlook-ish headers, but not all
Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
The BUGGY_CGI rule catches that, it's been in SA for a long time. It must
work (in conjunction with other rules) because I haven't had a formmail spam
slip through in at least 6 months.
--
Michael Moncur mg
Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score
> higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did
> not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the
> exception of newsletters, that does not include plain te
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:53:23AM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
BUGGY_CGI catches those.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
I'm paranoid, that's why everyone hates me...
msg12155/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ed Weinberg wrote:
I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
Back around 1987 a 15 year old kid named Matt Wright wrote a FormMail
script. The original insecure version is still in use on a million
sites (no exageration). Spammers figured out how to send email through
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score
> higher.
It did also surprise me...
What I also figured out is that Outlook is unable to send a HTML mail
without plain text. That's why I wrote this rule :
me
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:53:23AM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
> =START EXAMPLE==
> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECT
At 11:53 AM 1.14.2003 -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote:
>I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
>Back around 1987 a 15 year old kid named Matt Wright wrote a FormMail
>script. The original insecure version is still in use on a million
>sites (no exageration). Spammers figured
Nope, this is normal behavior for SA, and there's no way to "fix" it on a
standard site-wide config.
This is a necessary byproduct of the fact that there's only ONE email, even
though there are multiple recipients. It would be impossible for SA, which
is merely a filter, to do anything more sop
I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score
higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did
not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the
exception of newsletters, that does not include plain text is spam. I
received 2 le
I am surprised that SA does not recognize spam sent by FormMail.pl.
Back around 1987 a 15 year old kid named Matt Wright wrote a FormMail
script. The original insecure version is still in use on a million
sites (no exageration). Spammers figured out how to send email through
it. Each stock scrip
I do, thank you. I should have included that in my post.
Sean P. McGlynn
NYS Division of the Budget
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
518-473-3750
>>> Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1/14/2003 11:17:11 AM >>>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:41:16AM -0500, Sean McGlynn wrote:
> spamassassin.bat file in Perl/bin d
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:41:16AM -0500, Sean McGlynn wrote:
> spamassassin.bat file in Perl/bin directory. When scanning mail the
> "looking up MX for 'yahoo.de' (or any other name)" returns "MX for
> 'yahoo.de' exists? 0". Doing an nslookup from a separate DOS window,
> setting the type=mx, at
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Sean McGlynn wrote:
> Installed SA 2.43 with Perl 5.6.1.633 for Guinevere 2.08a on GroupWise 6
> SP1 (SP2 on GWIA) on W2K Pro. Input SET RES_NAMESERVERS=123.123.123.123
> 123.123.123.124 (where 123... are our DNS servers (two of them)) in
> spamassassin.bat file in Perl/bi
At 06:58 AM 1/14/2003, you wrote:
Hello,
I have a strange behavior with sendmail 8.12.3 spamassassin 4.43 and
spamassassin-milter 0.1.2
I have configured spamassassin with a local.cf file containing
spam_level_stars 0
defang_mime 0
rewrite_subject 0
report_header 1
use_terse_report 1
The prob
Installed SA 2.43 with Perl 5.6.1.633 for Guinevere 2.08a on GroupWise 6
SP1 (SP2 on GWIA) on W2K Pro. Input SET RES_NAMESERVERS=123.123.123.123
123.123.123.124 (where 123... are our DNS servers (two of them)) in
spamassassin.bat file in Perl/bin directory. When scanning mail the
"looking up MX f
I sorted it out in the end..
I deleted /Library/Perl and installed perl 5.8.0, updated various
modules from CPAN & then installed SA. everything went smoothly, it
just took a while to get there.
thanks again
Dave S
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 03:45 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon,
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While the Date clearly is a bug in the webmail client and should be
> reported there,
>
>> - HTML only message with no text
>> - Outlook-ish headers, but not all of them (indicates someone trying
>> to look like Outlook ..
Does anyone know anything about a mailer called DBM? I just got a batch
of spam from emailbargain.com. One was for printer supplies, the
attached was for car insurance. Both had the following header line:
X-Mailer: DBM v8.3.1005.71612768
Some new ratware perhaps? A google for dbm and email didn
Hello,
I have a strange behavior with sendmail 8.12.3 spamassassin 4.43 and
spamassassin-milter 0.1.2
I have configured spamassassin with a local.cf file containing
spam_level_stars 0
defang_mime 0
rewrite_subject 0
report_header 1
use_terse_report 1
The problem is that spam mail is correctly
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:06:46PM +0100, Alan John Moore wrote:
> I received the following message yesterday, it got past spamassassin which
> surprised me, so I took a look at the message source. This message generated
> a score of -86.3 (I have SA set up to reject at +3.5 hits, so obviously this
el 14/1/03 15:23, Dallas Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribio el mensaje:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> Behalf Of Alan
>> John Moore
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:07 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [SAtalk] Spam got throug
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Alan
> John Moore
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Spam got through generating a negative score
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I received the following message y
I have upgraded from SA 2.41 to 2.43 but when I run spamd it fails
spamd -d -L -i 0.0.0.0 -x -u mail
if I remove the -u it defaults to nobody
spamd -d -L -i 0.0.0.0 -x -D
the mail user exists using id 8 is it that spamd has to have a higher user
id
Gareth Segree
Technical Support Analyst
(876)9
Is it possible to manually add spamphrases? I tried adding some to a local file in
/etc/mail/spamassassin, but they never seem to take after restarting spamd. Can
someone explain how the number you assign the spam phrase reflects the scoring?
Thanks
--
Hi,
I received the following message yesterday, it got past spamassassin which
surprised me, so I took a look at the message source. This message generated
a score of -86.3 (I have SA set up to reject at +3.5 hits, so obviously this
one got through). How is this possible? and is there any way to s
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Read up on the mime_defang option (which will be replaced by the
>> report_safe option in 2.50). This really needs to be in the FAQ ... not
>> that anyone reads it.
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, you mean like
> http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:24:28PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Read up on the mime_defang option (which will be replaced by the
> report_safe option in 2.50). This really needs to be in the FAQ ... not
> that anyone reads it.
Oh, you mean like http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index.cgi?req=al
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 07:24, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> "Andrew Joakimsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When forwarding a non-spam message with UebiMiau webmail, Spam Assasin
> > thinks it's spam! Anyone have any similar issues or know what I could
> > do to fix this?
>
> Well, that messages *d
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 22:36, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Andrew Allison wrote:
>
> > My Web host uses SpamAssassin to filter e-mail, but quite a bit gets
> > through. I've looked at the FAQs and don't find a mechanism for a Windows
> > (2000) user to submit the offending e-
77 matches
Mail list logo
