* Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > reject_unknown_hostname drops connections from machines without DNS A or
> > > MX record (twitchy)
> >
> > No. This rejects mail from machines that use a non-resolving hostname
> > as argument to the EHLO/HELO.
>
> Rather, no rDNS (PTR)?
Yep. It must res
Why don't we just form a lynch-mob designed exclusively to eliminate
these sorts of ninnies from the Internet as a whole?
(Or, optionally, continue to insult whatever intellect they have left
until they catch on that no one appreciates these ``warnings?' Am I
asking for too much perhaps?')
At 21:46 26/06/03 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> *SIGH*
>
> Why can't people get it right and make virus scanning systems that DON'T
> reply to mailing lists ? It seems pretty obvious that the people writing
> (these particular) email virus scanners h
The INSTALL file's personal installation instructions forget
SITEPREFIX. I wrote the devel list but I don't think it got thru.
Do tell them for me. perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=$A SYSCONFDIR=$B SITEPREFIX=$C
If you don't set SITEPREFIX, then you can't install it in 2.55.
-
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 03:22, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 20:46 26/06/03 -0400, Mail Adminstrator wrote:
> >An Internet e-mail message was sent to you from an outside source that
> >contained an prohibited file type, but was removed for security
> >purposes.
> >The message header is attached below. If
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:57:00PM +0300, Vasantha Narayanan wrote:
> The documentation seems to indicate, spamd and spamc are
> included in the distribution. But I can't find it. Can you
> please tell me where it is? Do I need to build it first?
Look in places like /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
At 18:28 26/06/03 -0700, Alan Leghart wrote:
WARNING:
This is a non-automated message to say that you are sending an evil
message with the worst-ever Sector Zero virus containing an icon with a
teddy bear.
Bill Gates has bought AOL and is tracking your email with a new and
improved ver
If you are not the intended recipient, please auto-respond to my
auto-responder, then erase your hard drive.
rm: /dev/brain0: operation not permitted
--
Benjamin A. Shelton
"What do you mean it won't turn on? Did you plug it in?"
*silence*
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 20:46 26/06/03 -0400, Mail Adminstrator wrote:
An Internet e-mail message was sent to you from an outside source that
contained an prohibited file type, but was removed for security
purposes.
The message header is attached below. If you must use e-mail to receive
business-related .exe files, the
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Under the terms of the GPL, that would constitute a modified version
>> (even without changing any rules), so there are some additional terms
>> that would need to be followed. The Artistic license is generally less
>> restrictive, if more difficult to understand.
Matt K
WARNING:
This is a non-automated message to say that you are sending an evil message
with the worst-ever Sector Zero virus containing an icon with a teddy bear.
Bill Gates has bought AOL and is tracking your email with a new and
improved version of Internet Explorer. Thus everyone's an
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 1:31:29 PM [-0700], Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Why "then"? SA will use the value from user_prefs if there is one. Note,
> that score and required_hits are two different beasts, but both can be set
> in user_prefs, no problem. Try spamassassin -D to see what's happening.
Ka
At 04:57 PM 6/26/2003 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Under the terms of the GPL, that would constitute a modified version
(even without changing any rules), so there are some additional terms
that would need to be followed. The Artistic license is generally less
restrictive, if more difficult to und
Incident Information:-
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Spamassassin-talk digest, Vol 1 #1318 - 29 msgs
WARNING: The file your_details.zip (details.pif) you received was infected
with the W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus. The file attachment was not successfull
Title: Houghton Internationals' Anti-virus Service, Antigen, found FILE FILTER= *.pif file
Houghton Internationals' Anti-virus Service (Antigen for Exchange) found your_details.zip
->details.pif matching FILE FILTER= *.pif file filter.
The file is currently Removed. The message, "[SAtalk] Re:
An Internet e-mail message was sent to you from an outside source that
contained an prohibited file type, but was removed for security
purposes.
The message header is attached below. If you must use e-mail to receive
business-related .exe files, there is a workaround. Please inform the
sender of
ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange has taken action on the message, please
refer to the contents of this message for further details.
Sender = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipient(s) = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Subject = Spamassassin-talk digest, Vol 1 #1318 - 29 msgs
Scanning Time = 06/26/2003 17:42:21
Engine/Patte
Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My thoughts exactly, which is why I suggested the HELO credentials are
pretty much useless these days, at least for blocking spam.
What do you check for ?
If someone claims to be your own mail server - and isn't - it's a pretty
safe bet they're up to no goo
Incident Information:-
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Spamassassin-talk digest, Vol 1 #1318 - 29 msgs
WARNING: The file your_details.zip (details.pif) you received was infected
with the W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus. The file attachment was not successfull
Ian Searle wrote:
>> We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
>> rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
>> understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules
>> we use to the Spamassasin development team in our product, and its
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:24:47PM -0600, Doc wrote:
> cpan> install Bundle::CPAN
> Going to read yes/sources/authors/01mailrc.txt.gz
> Going to read yes/sources/modules/02packages.details.txt.gz
> Database was generated on Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:43:28 GMT
> CPAN: HTTP::Date loaded ok
[...]
> gzip:
At 18:36 26/06/03 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 04:30 PM 6/26/2003 -0500, Richard Humphrey wrote:
I just set up MailScanner to run w SA/Sendmail and obviuously something
isnt configured correctly. Notice the 2 conflicting scores. I want
Mailscanner to do virus scanning and let SA take care of the s
Hi,
[apologies for turning SA-Talk into a chapter of "Postfix Configuration
For Dummies"...]
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > reject_unknown_hostname drops connections from machines without DNS A or
> > MX record (twitchy)
>
> No. This reject
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>as you point out, the problem is spammers can forge what's in the helo
>message just as they forge what's in MAIL FROM.
>
>but also, unfortunately, a way large percentage of sites do not have
>correctly configured names in their helos.
>
>(some have ip addresses. some h
At 22:31 26/06/03 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Tony Earnshaw wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:34:17 +0200:
> I, and many other (increasingly many other) mailadmins refuse on invalid
> HELO/EHLO credentials. Many can not afford to, many see this as a main
> weapon against non-ham.
>
Well, what do you exa
At 04:30 PM 6/26/2003 -0500, Richard Humphrey wrote:
I just set up MailScanner to run w SA/Sendmail and obviuously something
isnt configured correctly. Notice the 2 conflicting scores. I want
Mailscanner to do virus scanning and let SA take care of the spam. I
thought I had this set in the conf fil
Paul-Henri Lampe wrote:
> That's why my question might be an easy one: I would like
> spamassassin to ignore mail that was already checked (based on the
> X-Spam header for example). I went through the different cf files
> without finding anything.
>
> Is there a configuration option that coul
At 04:29 PM 6/26/2003 -0500, Charles Mount wrote:
Does anyone have a good way of blocking mail from anonymous mailers like
http://manicmail.net ?
It may not be commercial email but it is certainly unwanted.
FYI -- I use Sendmail-Switch with an access database and use the MimeDefang
milter to pass
* Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> HELO/EHLO credentials don't have to match an existing host name but
> they do have to be formatted properly (i.e. FQDN) I reject on broken
> HELO format with Postfix using:
>
> smtpd_helo_required = yes
>
> smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> hash
Hi Group,
I have a Redhat 7.3 server running Plesk 5.0 (which means I am
running qmail) at Rack Shack (if that means anything to this problem). I
attempted to install SA 2.55 and everything seemed to go well until I got
to running CPAN. The following is my session in CPAN.
as you point out, the problem is spammers can forge what's in the helo
message just as they forge what's in MAIL FROM.
but also, unfortunately, a way large percentage of sites do not have
correctly configured names in their helos.
(some have ip addresses. some have their non-fully-qualified name
Hello All !
I installed some time ago SpamAssassin on my computer ( a Macintosh
running under Mac OS X 10.2.6) and it works really fine. I didn't
have to tweak it too much to set it to my liking, and even without
knowing any perl, the scripts were easy to adapt to my setup.
That's why my q
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Tony Earnshaw wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:34:17 +0200:
>
> > I, and many other (increasingly many other) mailadmins refuse on invalid
> > HELO/EHLO credentials. Many can not afford to, many see this as a main
> > weapon against non-ham.
>
> Well, wh
Hi
For my new bayesian filter ( my diploma thesis) I need these mails to.
But:
I think it will be no problem to identify these spams. They have to transport
any kind of message / advertising. And even if this is a link to an homepage,
this is a valid token.
Please send me these SPAMs
Thorsten
Scott Rothgaber wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:38:57 -0400:
> bayes: no dbs present, cannot scan: /etc/mail/bayes_toks
>
> Do I need to initiali[zs]e the database, like `vacation -i'?
>
no, check the path, is it "/etc/mail/bayes" in your local.cf? You actually
may want it to write to /etc/mail/sp
At 12:50 PM 6/26/2003 -0700, Ian Searle wrote:
We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules we
use to the Spamassasin development team in our p
Yorkshire Dave wrote on 26 Jun 2003 15:13:41 +0100:
> Maybe something like a mime-part variance score can be made, percentage
> difference between plain and stripped html messages, or maybe even as
> simple as picking a few words at random from each part and looking for
> them in the other part. T
LBsys wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:01 +0100:
> But that's different from "ALL_CAPS".
>
You are right, but it's just a name! The rule in itself doesn't change
when you call it "NO_LOWER_CASE".
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.cona
Gordon Cormack wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:51:19 -0400:
> but I have no sensible
> way for it to separate ham/spam,
>
There is none, you cannot completely rely on SA doing it for you, you have
to be the last authority. What I do is:
1. some spamtrap email addresses are unscanned and get all sp
Does anyone have a good way of blocking mail from anonymous mailers like
http://manicmail.net ?
It may not be commercial email but it is certainly unwanted.
FYI -- I use Sendmail-Switch with an access database and use the MimeDefang
milter to pass mail through SpamAssassin on a mailhub; i.e. all
I just set up MailScanner to run w SA/Sendmail and obviuously something
isnt configured correctly. Notice the 2 conflicting scores. I want
Mailscanner to do virus scanning and let SA take care of the spam. I
thought I had this set in the conf file but what did I miss?
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam
Hi,
I have already seen them. Outgoing mails are currently not scanned
for Spam.
regards
Krishna
At 09:31 PM 6/24/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Dan Vande More wrote on Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:01:49 -0600:
> Any email but the manually telnet'd ones are not tagged.
>
I found it somewhat hard to under
Hi,
I have modified mimedefang-filter to query sql server and obtain
required_hits for individual user. But how can I pass the required_hits
value to spamassassin under mimedefang?
Thanks
Willie
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Title: Retrieve required_hits variable from mimedefang
Hi,
I have modified mimedefang-filter to query sql server and obtain required_hits for individual user. But how can I pass the required_hits value to spamassassin under mimedefang?
Thanks
Willie
"Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, if everyone stopped using SpamAssassin, it would work better too,
so I blame all users.
Yeah. Blame users. Users are the easiest to blame, anyways.
Well, I heard about this weakness before we even adopted Bayes. It was
coming, one way or another
--On Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:31 PM +0200 Kai Schaetzl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tony Earnshaw wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:34:17 +0200:
I, and many other (increasingly many other) mailadmins refuse on invalid
HELO/EHLO credentials. Many can not afford to, many see this as a main
weapon again
At 03:35 PM 6/25/2003, you wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 03:06:24PM -0400, Gary Schrock wrote:
> What I thought happens is that sa-learn can recognize an email message
that
> contains a message/rfc822 attached message, and learn from that attached
> message, hence the reason you should forward a
Installing SpamAssassin made mail processing really slow and so I wanted to
try the spamd/spamc approach. The documentation seems to indicate, spamd
and spamc are included in the distribution. But I can't find it. Can you
please tell me where it is? Do I need to build it first?
Also, the do
Matt Thoene wrote on Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:59:14 -0700:
> Actually, the most important thing for me is to be able to have users
> set their own required hits number. What's happening now is, it's run
> through spamassassin and given a score based on the local.cf settings,
> then run through it again
Tony Earnshaw wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:34:17 +0200:
> I, and many other (increasingly many other) mailadmins refuse on invalid
> HELO/EHLO credentials. Many can not afford to, many see this as a main
> weapon against non-ham.
>
Well, what do you exactly do to refuse them? Do a reverse looku
Patrick Morris wrote on Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:55:28 -0700:
> I don't believe (though I could
> be wrong) SA allows rules to be defined in user prefs.
>
The original poster didn't seem to ask about custom rules. I think you can
define them in user_prefs, just not when you use the SQL db approach.
Installing SpamAssassin made mail processing really slow and so I wanted to
try the spamd/spamc approach. The documentation seems to indicate, spamd
and spamc are included in the distribution. But I can't find it. Can you
please tell me where it is? Do I need to build it first?
Also, the do
We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules we
use to the Spamassasin development team in our product, and its
literature. Is this correct?
T
> Colin Bell wrote:
>
> > My main machine is at home, but I also read e-mail through a webmail
> > client at work. I would like to filter out the 'likely spam'
> > automatically to avoid clogging the webmail client. At present I end
> > up deleting all the spam that arrives in work hours by hand...
SpamTalk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Somewhere in the not very distant future SA is going to have to:
>
> A) render HTML to text ala LYNX
We already include our own HTML renderer (designed for spam filtering,
not pretty output).
> B) run the rendered text through a grammar check, I assume th
"Fox Flanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I blame SpamAssassin for these Bayes bypassing tricks. I had a custom
> Bayes solution working many months before it appeared in SpamAssassin.
> There was none of this bypassing crudola happening until SpamAssassin
> popularized Bayes :)
Well, if ever
:)
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
Tim Litwiller wrote:
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
IN
I insist that people not call refer to the unsmoked portions of cigarettes as "butts"
- this is scatalogical and offends my delicate sensibilities. Also, I used to live in
a city called Chicopee, Massachusetts which in the South Indian language of Kannada is
a reference to defecatory material.
LOL! Perfectly said.
David Chait wrote:
Spammers stick to what they know generally...screwing people, not protecting
them.
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Earnshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: [SAtalk] I'm fed up with Viagra
"Bingham, Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't believe we're even debating this!
Me neither - I thought the joke was obvious.
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers &
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 02:32:36PM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> Could we have an alternative to "spam?"
You could have spam sausage eggs and spam - there's not so much spam in it!
Regards: Jim Ford
--
Spam poison - don't use! ---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <---
-
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:31:28PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> 5.0 works very well with 2.60 and also did with 2.55, just that you had
> some more false negatives.
My threshold is the default 5 and I've had over a 1000 emails since I
installed 2.55 and not had one false positive (ham tagged as
From the responses to my original post, it doesn't appear that this is
possible...however, I'll give it one more try...
I recently implemented SA site-wide after having it run for just a few
local users. The local users (including me) would prefer to use various
levels of required hits. For exampl
* Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>I know one should not scan outgoing mails for Spam but here I have
> to that's why!
>
> I am using RedHat Linux 8, Sendmail with Horde/IMP CVS and MailScanner.
> I am using MailScanner to process only for Anti-Virus checks.
> Now procmail being a MDA,
As much as starting flame war is not my intention. This is ridicules.
Ham is a common word used to describe good e-mail. Please get over it.
There is nothing wrong with it. Doesn't matter if real ham is kosher or
not.
Political correctness is one of the worst plagues that modern man has
- Original Message -
From: "Luis Hernán Otegui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] A little Argentinian humor...
> was garbage!..."
> In the computer says: "You have 138 mails (99% spam)"
> And th
Hi,
I know one should not scan outgoing mails for Spam but here I have
to that's why!
I am using RedHat Linux 8, Sendmail with Horde/IMP CVS and MailScanner.
I am using MailScanner to process only for Anti-Virus checks.
Now procmail being a MDA, I am using it to scan mail for Spam using
S
We initially had users procmailrc running spamassassin (v2.54) then
"upgraded" to having them use spamc to talk to spamd. While the
performance was impressive, the machine would frequently hang. The
machine is clearly large enough if it could support them running
spamassassin but we backed off the
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 15:27, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Unfortunately developing good rules is a very labor-intensive task. The
> 2.5x family is, at least in my opinion, slightly weaker in the rules
> department than some of its predecessors. This weakness in the rules is the
> result of the effort
Hi list,
Having read this for long I thought it could be my time to contribute
something. :-)
> A message just slipped through, no text, just an image. It slipped through
> with a ridiculously low score, minus .6
>
> When I expanded the headers, I found that the message got through mostly
> becau
Tim Litwiller wrote:
It is best to be politically correct nowadays.
this attitude is a big part of what is wrong with the world these days!
It is infinately better to say it how it is or how you see it than to
attempt to be politically correct.
That doesn't mean you can't be nice when you say
My question is more regarding the "/nonexistent" part of the path. I don't
think SA is even pointing at the proper home directory.
The spamd user's home directory is set up properly with proper permissions,
so where is SA getting "nonexistent" from ?
Thanks,
David
> -Original Message-
Hi, here comes the explained version. By the way, Gaturro is the name of
this strip.
The funny thing is that I was just about to translate it, but accidentally
hit "send" the firts time ;-)... Here goes the so-called "international"
version:
The man says: "And I started surfing the internet bec
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 09:09 pm, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 June 2003 07:51 pm, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> > We are in the process of setting up a new server and until that is
> > finished we're hauling our mail down with kmail. We have it piping thru
> > SA. The problem is that thi
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 09:30 pm, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 June 2003 10:51 pm, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> > We are in the process of setting up a new server and until that is
> > finished we're hauling our mail down with kmail. We have it piping thru
> > SA. The problem is that th
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
This came by today, from a newspaper comic strip:
Luis Hernn Otegui
Administrador de Red
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas
Non habla Español.
What does it mean in Norwegian (or Dutch)?
Tony
--
Tony Earnshaw
Humor him, and he'
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 09:48 AM 6/26/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >What really worries me is the growing number of messages between 4.5 and
> >5. Many of these already have a Bayes score of 90+.
>
> Agreed, this is why rule development for SA always has been, and always
Somewhere in the not very distant future SA is going to have to:
A) render HTML to text ala LYNX
B) run the rendered text through a grammar check, I assume that there is an
open source analyzer available.
C) have the GA establish a Bayesian baseline of grammar scores indicative of
SPAM/HAM.
Buy
At 09:48 AM 6/26/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
What really worries me is the growing number of messages between 4.5 and
5. Many of these already have a Bayes score of 90+.
Agreed, this is why rule development for SA always has been, and always
will be, an arms race.
Spammers are aware of SpamAssas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject: [SAtalk] A little Argentinian humor...
>
>
> This came by today, from a newspaper comic strip:
>
> Luis Hernán Otegui
> Administrador de Red
> Facultad de Ciencias Exactas
> UNLP
Is anyone doing debian packages of SA any more? The last CVS snapshot was quite a
while ago...
Tony
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers.
>
> > \w is a word correct?
> >
> > Is this right:?
> > /(build(ing)?|increase|more) \w?wealth/i
> >
> > should hit "building real weatlh" ?
> >
> > Or is it just easier to write:
> > /(build(ing)?|increase|more).{1,10}wealth/i
>
> Do you have Philip Hazel(God bless him)'s pcretest on
I can't believe we're even debating this!
As my old boss would say, anyone who has enough free time on their hands
to worry about this kind of stuff needs a project!
I for one don't care what it's called. I'm more focused on keeping it
out of my users' mailboxes.
Ryan
-Original Message---
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> This is becoming a regular thing. A fake PGP signature buried inside
> HTML followed by a string of random words clearly aimed at tripping
> up the Bayes algorithms. Its becoming a daily event. See below.
>
>
>
might be worth matching white (on white)
I suppose someone will come up with an alternative to spam but then
how will that influence the previous non-spam/ham(<<< sorry, had to say it)
discussion ;o)
Regards,
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Tony Earnshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 June 2003 02:33
To: Daniel Quinlan
Cc
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 13:38, Fox Flanders wrote:
> I blame SpamAssassin for these Bayes bypassing tricks. I had a custom Bayes
> solution working many months before it appeared in SpamAssassin. There was
> none of this bypassing crudola happening until SpamAssassin popularized
> Bayes :)
> Now I
At 08:51 AM 6/26/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
That PGP sig buried in HTML sticks out like a sore thumb.
Even better, if you check my post from 6/14, most of these have a PGP
signature block, but are without a "begin pgp signed message" block..
Try this meta rule pair for a starter. I can't guara
I use qmail-scanner, because it gives you the option of virus scanning as
well, but there are probably more efficient/elegant ways of doing this
now. In short, you'll want to install in this order:
qmail (Maildir)
maildrop (or a procmail that understands Maildir)
qmail-queue patch (see qmail-sca
I am interested in building a training suite for spamassassin, based
on past learning. The trouble is, I don't have my mail sorted exactly
into spam and ham. What I do have is an accurate bayes-seen database
created by spamassassin and corrected by scrupulous use of sa-learn.
I also have log of a
It is best to be politically correct nowadays.
this attitude is a big part of what is wrong with the world these days!
It is infinately better to say it how it is or how you see it than to
attempt to be politically correct.
That doesn't mean you can't be nice when you say what you really thi
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 08:51 AM 6/26/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> >That PGP sig buried in HTML sticks out like a sore thumb.
>
>
> Even better, if you check my post from 6/14, most of these have a PGP
> signature block, but are without a "begin pgp signed message" block.
This came by today, from a newspaper comic strip:
Luis Hernán Otegui
Administrador de Red
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas
UNLP
GNU-GPL: "May The Source Be With You..."
---
[SA 2.55 on FreeBSD 5.0]
Good Morning!
`spamassassin -D --lint' shows the following errors. I re-read the
INSTALL file on the Web site and I *believe* that I followed all of
the instructions correctly. I could not find the USAGE file to which
INSTALL referred.
bayes: no dbs present, cannot sc
alex avriette wrote:
I got this gem today:
[...]
Note the X-Mailer header. Oh, and the "AmikaGuardian" stuff is put there
by speakeasy. It is a mail filter as well, only it doesn't work worth a
damn.
Duuno. I work my way backwards through the list from "the latest today"
back to wherever I have
Simon Byrnand wrote:
The HELO or EHLO commands are supposed to be used to identify the name
of the mail server making the connection, but is essentially meaningless
these days and is just a vestige of a time long forgotten when everyone
played nice and gave valid information. Think of it as the
On Thursday 26 June 2003 14:51, Jack Gostl wrote:
> Bayes attack is tougher, but 3-5 lines of all lower case letters with no
> punctuation would be a good start.
It would be, if it wouldn't just trigger the next cycle of evolution: E.g.
a text generator using simple markov chains with single-word
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Ham=good wanted email
Spam=bad unwanted email
Those are not the generally accepted definitions and definitely not the
ones used by us.
spam = unsolicited bulk/commercial email
ham = everything else
You are the language expert amongst the developers. It is best to be
pol
Chris Santerre wrote:
\w is a word correct?
Is this right:?
/(build(ing)?|increase|more) \w?wealth/i
should hit "building real weatlh" ?
Or is it just easier to write:
/(build(ing)?|increase|more).{1,10}wealth/i
Do you have Philip Hazel(God bless him)'s pcretest on your machine?
It'll t
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Martin Bene wrote:
> >This is becoming a regular thing. A fake PGP signature buried
> >inside HTML
> >followed by a string of random words clearly aimed at tripping up the
> >Bayes algorithms. Its becoming a daily event. See below.
>
> Yep, I've been seein these for quite so
Hi Jack,
>This is becoming a regular thing. A fake PGP signature buried
>inside HTML
>followed by a string of random words clearly aimed at tripping up the
>Bayes algorithms. Its becoming a daily event. See below.
Yep, I've been seein these for quite some time now;What I'm seeing is:
- spam in
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
