| John wrote on Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:33:53 +1100:
|
| > I havent been able to find a way of using spamassassin to trash mail
| > that is spam
| >
|
| Don't trash email, quarantine it, see MailCorral
| http://bsmdevelopment.com
|
all_spam_to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and make sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] i
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> arrives at the destination. I think this would be a useful rule, since you
> can easily identify a Message-Id that was added by your own MTA (it has
> your domain in it). Pseudo-code would go something like this:
So it this some
fre, 2003-01-31 kl. 23:18 skrev Tony L. Svanstrom:
> TE> If there had been a you-must-expect-spam-from-our-posters warning on
> TE> this list, I would have expected it as something natural. As it was, it
> TE> took me by surprise. In future it won't :-)
> This is a list about a product that batt
On 31 Jan 2003, Jason Kohles wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 12:23, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > On 31 Jan 2003 12:04:17 -0500
> > Jason Kohles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > There are also many webservers that provide the ability to define your
> > > own tags (Roxen's RXML, and IIS front-page e
Sendmail and many other MTAs (not qmail though) add a Message-Id header if
a message it handles does not have one. The only messages I see that lack
Message-Id are direct-to-MX spam from shoddy malware. Messages that are
sent normally by regular folks will have a Message-Id by the time it
arr
John wrote on Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:33:53 +1100:
> I havent been able to find a way of using spamassassin to trash mail
> that is spam
>
Don't trash email, quarantine it, see MailCorral
http://bsmdevelopment.com
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:
Aaron Sherman wrote on 31 Jan 2003 11:53:03 -0500:
> Is it not done because of overhead concerns? Certainly, it would be
> expensive.
>
Possibly, but it could also reduce the processing overhead in other
cases. Wouldn't it be enough to detect if an XML compliant renderer
would be able to make s
Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:50:49 -0800 (PST):
> The MSword ones definitely do; if you use the Word menus to send a
> document (not as an attachment), Word converts to multipart/alternative
> and its XML goop will appear in the text/html body part.
>
Well, but you can detect Word
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Earnshaw write:
TE> If there had been a you-must-expect-spam-from-our-posters warning on
TE> this list, I would have expected it as something natural. As it was, it
TE> took me by surprise. In future it won't :-)
This is a list about a product that battle
Being the "joker" that was the cause of this thread I can only support
the response of others that such a reaction to a posting in *this* list
amazes me a bit. Just wanted to share as much info as necessary and that
obviously will sometimes create false negatives My mail was not
meant to offend
This is actually a common question about Postfix. The answer is no, you
can't do anything within Postfix itself to make an inbound/outbound
distinction.
The best answer is apparently to run a separate postfix server on the
same box. The document on www.spamassassin.org about making Postfix work
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 13:12, Ray Dzek wrote:
> I want to take the functionallity of the 3 boxes I have now (Inbound Postfix
> +SA, Sendmail Outbound Relay, and Postfix + POP3) and cut that all down to
> one box. The transport mappings and aliases required to get the Mac users
> onto the POP3 box
I have spamassasin 2.43 running and I am quite pleased..
I have around 3000 users whose email is being sorted into a mail folder with procmail.
the mail can be checked with a web interface (imp/horde) for false positives.
however many of my customers are either too stupid or just dont care to lo
> BA> > I guess I will try to ask this question again, last time I was attacked for
> BA> > asking.
>
> A, were people not nice to you? Bad, bad, bad Internet...
>
> BA> No, last time you were roundly chastised for being a right, honorable
> BA> bastard to anyone who tried to help you or get a
With the addition of some stricter porn rules, SA can be used to identify
adult emails and then you can use procmail to either quarantine or delete them.
Currently SA is fairly modest about the "adult content" rules, it's really
only tuned to try to trap porn site advertisements. Most "adult
co
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 11:54, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> Luckily I have a test rig and no-one but the spammer has got hurt up to
> now (apart from postings to this list, used as examples). As for the
> Bayesian stuff is concerned, its trigger for learning remains on 12.
Actually, I'm curious about tha
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:49, kcorey wrote:
> Thought you guys might be interested. The spammers are getting
> desperate, methinks.
Many spammers now include many tricks to try to surmount SpamAssassin.
Why? Because SpamAssassin is easily available to use as a test for their
spam. This particular
In local.cf change mimedefang to 0
-Original Message-
From: Johnny L. Wales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:32 AM
To: Jerry Rasmussen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] MS Outlook vcalendar doohickeys
Is there anything that can be done to stop it, or
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Greg Cirino wrote:
> |
> | On January 1st 2002, the European countries began
>
> what you have below as well as bogus closing tags example:
> or or... well you get the idea, does not
> get checked.
>
> I imagine a private rule (derived from the OBFUS...ENT rule) would
>
5.30 points, 5 required;
* -0.4 -- Forwarded email
* 0.3 -- BODY: HTML font face is not a commonly used face
* 1.2 -- BODY: Javascript to open a new window
* 0.3 -- BODY: HTML font color not within safe 6x6x6 palette
* 0.3 -- BODY: HTML font color is red
* 1.0 -- BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HT
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:30:05AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Let me guess, you upgraded SA recently? The above almost always happens
> due to an upgrade and some form of mismatched code (scripts and modules,
> modules and rules, etc.)
Yes. i updated it with apt-get, then icompile the curren
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 04:36:04PM +0100, Enno Lenze wrote:
> Yes. i updated it with apt-get, then icompile the current stable version,
> then the newest, without fixing the problem.
What you want to do is blow away the scripts, rules, and modules. Then reinstall.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Is there anything that can be done to stop it, or
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Jerry Rasmussen wrote:
> I believe it is the MIME Defang that causes this problem.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Johnny L. Wales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PR
On 31 Jan 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> This joker/subscriber set off my automatic smtp 550 mail refusal system
> [...]
> I've gzipped his offending mail and attached it, so that people can see
> *why* it was refused (it got 9.1 points, trigger is 5.0).
A 5.0 trigger is much too low (IMO) for gen
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:49:34PM +0100, Enno Lenze wrote:
> Can't locate object method "handle_auto_report" via package
> "Mail::SpamAssassin:
> :PerMsgStatus" (perhaps you forgot to load
> "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus"?)
> at /usr/bin/spamassassin line 231.
> procmail: Program failure (70)
I'm running 2.43, and thankfully it has a rule for that: OBFUSCATING_COMMENT
/[^\s>][^\s<]/ Score 2.083.
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: kcorey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] New kind of spam?
Hi All,
I ha
Hi All,
I happened to be trolling through my inbox in raw text mode, as you do,
and noticed this.
Thought you guys might be interested. The spammers are getting
desperate, methinks.
Good. May they all their fingers rot off.
-Ken
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This joker/subscriber set off my automatic smtp 550 mail refusal system
under SA 2.50-CVS, so that particular posting from this list got
refused. His SA 2.43 accepted it.
I hope the list software doesn't kick me off for one 550. I've put it in
the whitelist, now - so it shouldn't happen any more.
fre, 2003-01-31 kl. 07:33 skrev John:
> I havent been able to find a way of using spamassassin to trash mail
> that is spam. I've seen some indication that procmail can be used
> but in my relaying enviroment I cant see that as working. spamtrap1
> seems to be for individual accounts so that als
When I do a make test for Mail-SpamAssassin-2.43 I get following results:
[join@ernie Mail-SpamAssassin-2.43]$ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib
-I/usr/perl5/5.00503/sun4-solaris -I/usr/perl5/5.00503 -e 'use
Test::Harness qw(&runtests $verbose); $verbose=0; runtests
I just got done parsing through about 450 pieces of spam and have
an observation to share with SpamAssassin's developers in hopes
that this will improve their ability to track this stuff.
I get a lot of mail from addresses like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and so on..
31 matches
Mail list logo
