Everyone,
I have been trying to tweak my spamassassin 2.31 that came with Red Hat 8.0
and noticed that it was not filtering the mail sometimes. I have activated
spamd/spamc with the spamassassin script that comes with RED HAT. The
observation I have made is that when I boot the system spamd is
Ron Gilbert wrote:
That message hit with BAYES_80, that's a +5 for my rules. Anything over
BAYES_50 is a +5 and it works like a charm. Although the other rules
are still in effect, the BAYES filter does all the real work.
I added this to local.cf a little while ago, after another 4.9'er
slipped
On Saturday 23 August 2003 23:36 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> Malte S. Stretz writes:
> > On Saturday 23 August 2003 18:35 CET Steve Thomas wrote:
> > > Something is horribly wrong with the SA website. It was unreachable
> > > for a while and now I'm getting this:
> > >
> > > Not Found
> > > The reque
Malte S. Stretz writes:
> On Saturday 23 August 2003 18:35 CET Steve Thomas wrote:
> > Something is horribly wrong with the SA website. It was unreachable for a
> > while and now I'm getting this:
> >
> > Not Found
> > The requested URL / was not found on this server.
>
> Seems there's something
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> FYI: Just because the problem I found was SHA1 doesn't mean all the
> problems are SHA1. You have to run that perl commandline to change
> "use lib" then try "use"ing the Razor2 modules, and see what it says.
Thank you gentlemen v
I suspect a number of people have already responded to you (probably a
few in a rather rude fashion), but just in case...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Brian Scott wrote:
> I notice that many recent viruses are using faked return email
> addresses.
>
> Consequently, when one of these infected emails is
On Saturday 23 August 2003 21:31 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 09:00:14PM +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > The version doesn't really matter, just two versions of SHA1 break the
> > module. You don't get nay messages like this when you run spamassassin
> > in debug mode?
>
>
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 09:00:14PM +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> The version doesn't really matter, just two versions of SHA1 break the
> module. You don't get nay messages like this when you run spamassassin in
> debug mode?
FYI: Just because the problem I found was SHA1 doesn't mean all the
whenever i see my email address in a spam url, i visit that url with
all the whois contact info for the domain in question.
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 07:31 PM, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
ARGH
I want to SHOOT this spammer. Repeatedly. These ALWAYS pop in at 4.9,
always using "jnichols@(faked.co
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 09:35:30AM -0700, Steve Thomas wrote:
> Something is horribly wrong with the SA website. It was unreachable for a while and
> now I'm getting this:
The main SA site is hosted by sourceforge, and they seem to be having
issues, like usual... I'm submiting a support request
On Saturday 23 August 2003 09:43 CET Jim wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:39:00AM +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 August 2003 21:26 CET Jim wrote:
> > > In SA 2.55, it was working fine. DCC still works in this version.
> >
> > This might be a symptom of bug 2314 [1]. Please che
On Saturday 23 August 2003 11:00 CET Simon Byrnand wrote:
> > I notice that the spam test message is some new standard GTUBE
> > and includes a 'Precedence: junk' header.
>
> The header is normal. The effect you're describing isn't.
>
> > spam tends not to have this header and thus this is not a go
On Saturday 23 August 2003 18:35 CET Steve Thomas wrote:
> Something is horribly wrong with the SA website. It was unreachable for a
> while and now I'm getting this:
>
> Not Found
> The requested URL / was not found on this server.
Seems there's something heavily borked on the distribution site,
Something is horribly wrong with the SA website. It was unreachable for a while and
now I'm getting this:
Not Found
The requested URL / was not found on this server.
Apache/1.3.26 Server at spamassassin.org Port
I notice that many recent viruses are using faked return email
addresses.
Consequently, when one of these infected emails is detected by spam
assassin, many systems appear to reply to the fake email address with
an "exact" copy of the original email - virus included and very much
dangerous.
N
Hi Everyone, developers in particular
I notice that all messages that are comming through this mailing list
trigger the CLICK_BELOW and FREE_TRIAL rules in 2.60-rc2 (havn't checked
2.55) due to the following section of ad banner added by sourceforge to
each message:
Free trial click here:http
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:38:35PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
>> Ok, I'll probably get thumped by someone for not RTFM but I'm just
>> trying
>> out 2.60-rc2 on a test machine, and for whatever reason it is not adding
>> the X-Spam-Report header on messages that are detected as spam.
>>
>> Is th
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:26:49AM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> But the report doesn't look anything like the old full reports... (which I
As I said, no more full reports in the header.
> You suggested using _REPORT_ (which I will try instead of _SUMMARY_) am I
> right in thinking that will show
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:38:35PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Ok, I'll probably get thumped by someone for not RTFM but I'm just trying
> out 2.60-rc2 on a test machine, and for whatever reason it is not adding
> the X-Spam-Report header on messages that are detected as spam.
>
> Is there a new
"Jim Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jim,
> Look for a file called check_bayes_db in the tools directory of
> Mail-SpamAssassin.
There is not a file with that name on my hd, I even checked all the
spamassassin directories. I use spamassassin 2.55-2 from Debian
Unstable.
> Run it and pipe
> OK, this is 2.60 release candidate 2; it should work pretty excellently,
> but we want to give it a day or two before it gets an official thumbs-up.
> You can download it from http://SpamAssassin.org/released/ -- note:
> the release candidates are not listed on the SA Download page and will
> not
Thanks for the explanation!
Is the auto-learning automatic, or do I need to configure
something in local.cf?
Ricardo
- Original Message Follows -
> At 09:02 PM 8/20/2003 -0700, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>
> >I posted this but didn't see any replies... Can someone
> help >me understand it
ODHIAMBO Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi ODHIAMBO,
> * Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030822 09:33]: wrote:
> > OK, this is 2.60 release candidate 1; it should work pretty
> > excellently, but we want to give it a day or two before it gets an
> > official thumbs-up. Download it from
>> OK, this is 2.60 release candidate 1;
>
> I notice that the spam test message is some new standard GTUBE
> and includes a 'Precedence: junk' header.
>
> I call Spamassassin from Amavisd-new, and this header affects
> the notification system, supressing it.
Huh ?
> I think that normal (?)
The
Dear list,
I'm having some problems getting spamc/spamd working on a qmail gateway. I'm wondering
what is the most lightweight way to get mail scanned and then re-injected back into
the qmail-queue? I have qmail patched to work with the QMAILQUEUE variable. If I point
my QMAILQUEUE to spamc noth
Hi all,
I just upgraded to 2.60rc1 from 2.55, and found I now get the
following errors in my procmail logs occasionally (not every time,
but it's happened a few times since the upgrade). When I get the
errors, the mail seems to pass through without having any
spamassassin headers added.
'make tes
That message hit with BAYES_80, that's a +5 for my rules. Anything over
BAYES_50 is a +5 and it works like a charm. Although the other rules
are still in effect, the BAYES filter does all the real work.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf O
On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 11:41, Hannu Liljemark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:56:00AM +0300, Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote:
> Is there a way I can generate a list of domains of senders which are
> marked as spam by spamassassin
Sure, create a file in e.g. /usr/share/spamassassin/ dir that h
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:39:00AM +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 21:26 CET Jim wrote:
> > In SA 2.55, it was working fine. DCC still works in this version.
>
> This might be a symptom of bug 2314 [1]. Please check out if you have an old
> version of Digest::SHA1 dang
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:18:00PM +0300, Angel Gabriel wrote:
> Does SA-lean learn where an email originates, and give that
> domain a higher score?
Not really. Auto-whitelist is email-address specific and
spammers don't really like to use same sender address.
Your best bet is probably to use th
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:56:00AM +0300, Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote:
> Is there a way I can generate a list of domains of senders which are
> marked as spam by spamassassin
Sure, create a file in e.g. /usr/share/spamassassin/ dir that has
blacklist_from lines. Restart spamd or kill HUP (if us
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 22:36, Chris Santerre wrote:
Ok, I grabbed the script I wrote. Quick and dirty but seems to save a LOT of
time. The idea is simple.
Basically grep your spamtrap for all lines that have 'http://' in them. You
lose a small percent because of line breaks but they repeat so
32 matches
Mail list logo
