Hello everyone
I am looking for a good spam stat program that will work with spamassassin
and qmail.
I don't care if it's graphical or not, as long as it works.
Thank you!!
Marek
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web
At 03:14 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
I've suggested before on the list that predefined whitelists for places
like amazon.com should be much less than -100, just -10, or perhaps even
-5. Enough to offset any "spamminess" that might otherwise bump them over
over the threshold, but not s
At 21:41 22/06/03 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:15 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no ind
Greetings,
I'm running RH9, perl v5.8.0, and Theo's latest rpms spamassassin-2.55-1 and the
scans are killing my
machine. I read about the LANG issue and set LANG=en_US and I also had set:
# :0fw: spamassassin.lock
# * < 256000
# | /usr/bin/spamc -f
It may be the bayes db --does this require pr
At 18:36 22/06/03 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
Simon Byrnand said:
> > So quickly that it makes me suspicious as to what was REALLY
> >wrong. Maybe something more than just load, or RBL problems. Maybe a
> >locking problem.
>
> Nope, this is a problem with stock installs of sendmail/procmail and/o
At 12:15 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no indication of what version of SpamAssassin proce
Simon Byrnand said:
> > So quickly that it makes me suspicious as to what was REALLY
> >wrong. Maybe something more than just load, or RBL problems. Maybe a
> >locking problem.
>
> Nope, this is a problem with stock installs of sendmail/procmail and/or a
> lack of memory. How much memory does
Check the first two lines of the header:
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from router ([192.168.1.8])
It looks like it was able to spoof amazon.com, which would explain why
it got whitelisted. If I'm reading this correctly, the first hop was to
an internal router (probably with its own
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 20:54 22/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > > At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > >
> > > >I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> > > >it.
> > > >
> >
At 20:54 22/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> >it.
> >
> >Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
>
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no indication of what version of SpamAssassin processed the
message, its not even obvious that it
#!/bin/sh
loadavg=`sed 's/\..*//g' /proc/loadavg`
if [ "$loadavg" -gt 14 ]; then
/usr/bin/logger -i -p mail.warn -t `basename $0` WARNING:
Returning temporary failure due to load average of $loadavg
exit 75
fi
procmail=`ps -Af | grep procmail | grep -v grep | wc -l`
if [ "$procm
At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
it.
Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
an RBL goes out. I wind up with many copies of spamd running, many more
than the -m parameter should allo
Simon Byrnand said:
> > - for spam, must have 3 head hits and 3 body hits
>
> Why ? This seems a bit arbitrary to me. Either we trust the scoring or we
> don't :) What is magic about 3 in particular ?
Yeah, not sure myself. if I recall correctly it gave a stronger
statistical basis to ensur
Hi,
On 21 Jun 2003 19:21:12 +0100 Yorkshire Dave
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 08:58, Alan Leghart wrote:
>
> > This method proposes to delay EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE until a database match
> > is found for sending IP, FROM, and TO.
> >
> > So...we punish everyone in the world
Mark,
This sounds great; thanks for posting the script. One question: does
this method preserve the message headers? I've had a lot of problems
keeping the headers intact with Exchange 2000/Public Folders/IMAP.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Mark Motley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
At 15:20 22/06/03 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
Matt Kettler said:
> As for disabling the network checks for auto-learning, that makes sense to
> me as well, since the bayes code learns from text tokens, not IPs.
Actually, not quite right, if you're scanning with network tests, it'll
do the auto-lea
> > I've installed spamassassin 2.54 in redhat 7.3 with a machine specs
> > of Intel PII 350MHz 128MB, there are times that my server loads
> > abnormally increases when spamassassin daemon scanning emails. I used
> > to restart the daemon process and the server load back to normal
> > again.
>
>
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
--cut
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from router ([192.168.1.8])
by router with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
id 19UD83-0006oj-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:16:07 +0200
Received: from localhost
by local
At 10:08 22/06/03 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 08:30 PM 6/21/03 -0400, Gordon Cormack wrote:
Auto-learn and auto-whitelist use different scoring criteria from those
used in spamassassin's spam filtering.
The bayes auto-learning does not use "it's own" scoring mechanism, it uses
scoreset 0. This i
Matt Kettler said:
> As for disabling the network checks for auto-learning, that makes sense to
> me as well, since the bayes code learns from text tokens, not IPs.
Actually, not quite right, if you're scanning with network tests, it'll
do the auto-learn score test with network tests as well.
Gordon Cormack said:
> In supervised mode, positive feedback is exactly what you want.
>
> For the reasons that I've mentioned before, the lack of feedback in the
> current setup causes the system to 'learn' progressively less accurate
> information.
BTW supervised mode is pretty trivial to set
At 08:19 22/06/03 +0200, guenther wrote:
> I think what might eventually happen is that ISP's start blocking egress
> on port 25 from all but their own mailserver(s) which forces all the
> customers within their ip range to relay through their server. That way
> they can run something like spamass
At 12:36 20/06/03 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> In 2.60, RBL lookups are going to be a *lot* faster. I should do some
>> benchmarks vs. 2.55, but you should notice a very nice improvement.
Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm curious, what kind of changes are r
Test, James wrote:
Using spamassassin 2.54 + red hat 8.0 + exim 4.20. I have made some custom rules, and sometimes incoming mail seems to totally bypass my custom rules. I had a piece of spam come in that did not seem to be analyzed by my local.cf file. I can then take that same mail and forwar
Tomoyuki Sakurai wrote:
>> Hopefully SA2.60 would solve it.
Gordon Cormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The version of 2.60 that I have sort of works in detecting obfuscated html.
>
> It *does* detect words split apart by html comments.
>
> It *does not* detect words split apart by bogus tags.
I understand that SA 2.60 has a revamped learning routine. When installing
it should I delete the old data to prevent it from picking up any old bad
habits? If yes, what file(s) should I delete?
TIA,
Bill
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by
Using spamassassin 2.54 + red hat 8.0 + exim 4.20. I have made some custom rules, and
sometimes incoming mail seems to totally bypass my custom rules. I had a piece of
spam come in that did not seem to be analyzed by my local.cf file. I can then take
that same mail and forward it to go throug
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:49:36PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
> please somebody tell me how to make install in $HOME!?
>
Dan,
I, too, had a great deal of trouble installing spamassassin. In the
end I did the following:
1. installed my own version of perl with the necessary packages
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:18:05PM +0900, Tomoyuki Sakurai wrote:
> Hopefully SA2.60 would solve it.
The version of 2.60 that I have sort of works in detecting obfuscated html.
It *does* detect words split apart by html comments.
It *does not* detect words split apart by bogus tags.
It *does n
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:45:42AM -0400, Gordon Cormack wrote:
> What I have observed is < 0.2% false > positives and < 1.0% false negatives.
I miscomputed, using only the spam count in the denominator. The true
numbers [false / (ham+spam)] are:
false positives: < 0.05% (counted)
false
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:08:07AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 08:30 PM 6/21/03 -0400, Gordon Cormack wrote:
> >Auto-learn and auto-whitelist use different scoring criteria from those
> >used in spamassassin's spam filtering.
>
> The bayes auto-learning does not use "it's own" scoring mechanis
Hi Dan,
All I can say is, it works for me. I have SA in the following locations:
/home/kc8hr/bin/sausr/bin/spamassassin
/home/kc8hr/bin/sausr/share/spamassassin
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Non-root mentioned twice: These should be consolidated
> $ egrep -in 'personal|non-root' /v
| Do you have any good idea?
I'dont. Nice guys do.
Hopefully SA2.60 would solve it.
See,
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=5013771
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=523
Regards,
--
Tomoyuki Sakurai - Tomi -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
At 08:30 PM 6/21/03 -0400, Gordon Cormack wrote:
Auto-learn and auto-whitelist use different scoring criteria from those
used in spamassassin's spam filtering.
The bayes auto-learning does not use "it's own" scoring mechanism, it uses
scoreset 0. This is the score the email would get by the main S
At 03:30 PM 6/21/03 +0100, Jim Ford wrote:
Hi,
A bit OT here - I've posted to the net-dns list, but I feel I'm more likely
to get a response here!
I'm trying to use Net::DNS with spamassassin without success so far.
I've grabbed Net-DNS-0.38 and installed it, but when I run the test
suite I get t
Justin Mason wrote on Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:12:01 -0700:
> Not the case -- whitelist settings are ignored for auto-learning. So
> if the mail is judged as spam without the WL score applied, it'll
> be auto-learned as spam.
I see, thanks. I looked at his stats and it looked like it was learned
onl
Hello,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR MESSAGE SEEN BY
OVER 15.7 MILLION OPT-IN, TARGETED PEOPLE DAILY?
PLUS RECEIVE TONS OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!
Below contains all the information you will ever need to market
your product or service on the Internet.
If you have a product, service, or
Hi,
I'm using SA 2.55, with no previous installations. I've got Razor & DCC
working fine, but as the last piece of the jigsaw I want to use RBLs. I've
installed Net::DNS (0.38) and although some tests were skipped, the Net-DNS
mailing list assures me my installation's OK. I've got 'dns_available y
The following are everything needed to easily install razor2 on Red Hat
Linux 9. You need to rebuild these SRPMS, and it will tell you what
additional perl packages that shipped with RH9 are needed when you
install them. These packages are polished up and in the process of
approval for publicatio
Hi Gordon
> The rationale for spamassassin's behaviour is, I think, the fear that
> in unsupervised mode it will go off track. Perhaps there should be a user
> flag "supervised/unsupervised" that determines whether or not the same
> criteria are used for filtering and learning. In "supervised" m
> I think what might eventually happen is that ISP's start blocking egress
> on port 25 from all but their own mailserver(s) which forces all the
> customers within their ip range to relay through their server. That way
> they can run something like spamassassin on *outgoing* messages and, for
> e
> So, gentlemen, hat(s) off and on in ever increasing tempo.
Full ack! Although my results are not as good and a couple of SPAM still
slips through...
> I wonder what comes next. To my mind, attempts at legislation will prove
> useless. Technology will prove the savior.
Technology as the savi
43 matches
Mail list logo
