On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Well, a copy-paste of some interpretation of the message by pine isn't
> really going to give us much useful information to go on.
> However, I'd venture to guess that the MIME construction is of a nature
> which confuses SA.. For example, a bug that was
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> OSIRUSOFT is and has been DEAD. They now match EVERY IP address in the
> world in an effort to force everyone to wake up and stop using OSIRUSOFT as
> a blacklist.
Ah. Excellent. So I need not worry about this. Thanks!
- Charles
Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Two SA rules to help immediately with this are:
>
> ### I wrapped the rawbody line to keep the integrity of the rule.
> # Invisible text color in font tag
> rawbody MY_RBDY_INVSTXT
>//i
> describe MY_RBDY_INVSTXTMY: Invisible text color
> sc
At 12:50 AM 10/14/03 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
While I think of it, can anyone tell me HOW to actually reach a warm body
at 'Osirusoft' and get them to correct the 'blacklisting' of our mail
server? It shows up as an open relay, which is something we've never been.
I've run several open relay t
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
> http://spamassassin.org/released/RPMs/
> Basically the following commands should do it.
> wget http://spamassassin.org/released/RPMs/spamassassin-2.60-1.src.rpm
> rpmbuild --rebuild spamassassin-2.60-1.src.rpm
> rpm -Uvh spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm
At 12:39 AM 10/14/03 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
Is there something about the windows charset that throws off the recipe?
Or are they using 'high bit' to invalidate the regex?
Well, a copy-paste of some interpretation of the message by pine isn't
really going to give us much useful information t
Hi!
I've got a rule (SA 2.44) that looks like this:
body LOC_DOCTORB /our doctors will write.*prescription/i
I've seen it work a few times, so the syntax is okay. But today it did not
match on the following (excuse the full headers,but they might give a
clue):
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hallo!
While I think of it, can anyone tell me HOW to actually reach a warm body
at 'Osirusoft' and get them to correct the 'blacklisting' of our mail
server? It shows up as an open relay, which is something we've never been.
I've run several open relay tests just to be sure we weren't hacked.
In
-H should list a directory other than the default home directory of the
user that's calling spamc. Else, don't use it at all.
-m5 should be -m 5 I believe.
Other than that, Idunno. Feel free to ignore me.
-tom
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
OK, that doesn't work... I changed from:
SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -c -a -m5 -H "
to:
SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -c -a -m5 -H -u root"
and now spamd won't start.
The line in the spamd init.d script that actually calls it is:
daemon spamd $SPAMDOPTIONS
and that is directly from the
Mail-SpamAssassin
Thanks Matthew,
All the input I can get helps!
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Cline
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:27 PM
> To: Larry Gilson
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Consonant and Vowel Pairs or Sequences
>
>
> On Monday 13 October 2003 01:02 pm, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
Hi Terry,
This is useful feedback. It helps me think that there are so many more
combinations of consonants that the test may not be worth the effort. I
will continue to look at the problem as I would like to more accurately test
for random strings.
I can see the possiblity that a consonant pai
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:17:17PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Red Hat seems to be in a transition. Not sure there _will_ be another
> consumer release of Red Hat. Check out the Fedora Project for
> details.
There won't be, according to the RH sales guy I spoke with today.
RHN will stop supportin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:17 PM
> To: 'SA'
> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: Any Idea When RH RPMs are coming out?
>
>
> Bill Polhemus wrote:
> > I really would prefer to implement something as complex as SA through
> > the RPMs on my Red
Bill Polhemus wrote:
> I really would prefer to implement something as complex as SA through the
> RPMs on my Red Hat 9 system. So far, they are only up to SA 2.55. That has
> worked fine up until recently, when the HTML obfuscation has begun cropping
> up. Perhaps 2.60 can fix that.
>
> Any idea
You're right, this wasn't the best example of the spurious HTML tag ploy. I
got one earlier today or yesterday that was seemingly from this same
spammer, which DID have those "bad tags," and when I grabbed this to post to
the list I ASS-umed that this would be similar, but you're correct, it's
real
Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ### I wrapped the rawbody line to keep the integrity of the
> ### rule.
> # Invisible text color in font tag
> rawbody MY_RBDY_INVSTXT
>//i
> describe MY_RBDY_INVSTXTMY: Invisible text color
> scoreMY_RBDY_INVSTXT2.0
That should work.
Bill Polhemus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They use the
> spurious HTML tags to break up the text and get it through the
> Bayesian filter.
I don't see any text actually broken up. There's just not that
much to trigger on. The drug names (most of which aren't in
the default rules yet) are bro
Hi Bill,
Two SA rules to help immediately with this are:
### I wrapped the rawbody line to keep the integrity of the rule.
# Invisible text color in font tag
rawbody MY_RBDY_INVSTXT
//i
describe MY_RBDY_INVSTXTMY: Invisible text color
scoreMY_RBDY_INVSTXT2.0
# Obfuscate text
I really would prefer to implement something as complex as SA through the
RPMs on my Red Hat 9 system. So far, they are only up to SA 2.55. That has
worked fine up until recently, when the HTML obfuscation has begun cropping
up. Perhaps 2.60 can fix that.
Any idea when those will be available?
Wi
Jack Gostl Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:38 PM:
> We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
Some quick queries of my spam stats log database say we're at over 75%.
Landy and Jack you are lucky. I'm sure there ar
I have been following this list for about 2 weeks. From what I have
been reading
here, it is possible to run a private blacklist at the MTA level somehow
using bind.
I use RH8, DNS, sendmail, procmail, and spamassassin. I have eliminated
my worst
offenders by maintaining my access.db to REJECT
Colin A. Bartlett
Kinetic Web Solutions
office: 610-831-9030 x51
mobile: 215-292-2193
home: 215-292-2616
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jack
Gostl
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:38 PM
To: landy
Cc: SA
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] bad day
We
Here's another one from a batch of several that have gotten through SA 2.55
over the last several days. They use the spurious HTML tags to break up the
text and get it through the Bayesian filter.
I'm running these through every time I get one--and luckily, there've only
been about one or two per
At 05:00 PM 10/13/03 -0400, Jon Fraley wrote:
I currently have RBL checks turned off on our SA 2.6. We do our RBL
checks at the firewall. Can SA do the RBL checks from within our
network behind a virus appliance, or does it just check the last hop
that was made. The reason I ask this is that I d
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 10:14 AM 10/13/2003, Mike Carlson wrote:
> >Has -a been deprecated and now a default option?
> >I am still starting spamd with the -a option and I am wondering if I still
> >need it.
>
> Um why would the AWL ever become a default. It's clearly NOT a good
> idea for
Antonio Nó Rodríguez Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:06 PM
> How do you get those nice logs? I've been looking for something similar
> but haven't find anything yet.
> Thank you
> Antonio
I wrote an ASP script (It's all I know) that reads the maillog from our SA
server into our MS SQL server. It
--On Monday, October 13, 2003 6:04 PM -0400 "Carl R. Friend"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do. 2.60 fixes quite a few things, shuts down now-long-gone
> RBLs, improves scoring, and (even though I was originally a
> skeptic) performs well enough (sans Bayes).
And like anti-virus software, anti-
At 01:27 PM 10/13/2003, Dave Bartmess wrote:
I've got the following in my local.cf, running SA as root (from init.d
script), and it never comes up saying that it's using auto-learn, and
the bayes files never seem to change... What's going on with this?
I assume you mean you're running spamd, not SA
At 10:14 AM 10/13/2003, Mike Carlson wrote:
Has -a been deprecated and now a default option?
I am still starting spamd with the -a option and I am wondering if I still
need it.
--Mike
Um why would the AWL ever become a default. It's clearly NOT a good
idea for certain kinds of server deploy
On Monday, October 13, 2003 at 9:02 PM, Larry wrote:
> Does anyone know of a list of either:
> 1) existing/allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
> 2) non-existing/not-allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
> For the English language preferably.
I don't know about pairs of consonants/vowe
At 17:55 13/10/2003 -0400, landy wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:54, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> > have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
>
> Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not counting viruses
Hi Michael,
I gave this a try, commenting out bayes and then adding it back too.
NOW I'm seeing spamd running for about 1 hour before it crashes the
machine
with and without bayes commented. A marked improvement, but still
crashing my machine.
I did also update DB_File using CPAN, but I noticed
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:54, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> > have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
>
> Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not counting viruses,
> which get blocked before spamassass
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 12:13, cyrille wrote:
> landy a écrit:
>
> >File /var/log/mail : from Oct 12 00:05:27 to Oct 12 21:10:54
> >Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 171
> >Number of spams :36 ( 21.05%)
> >Number of clean messages:
How do you get those nice logs? I've been looking for something similar
but haven't find anything yet.
Thank you
Antonio
El lun, 13-10-2003 a las 03:16, landy escribió:
> i cant believe today i have so fat 21% spam
>
>
> File /var/log/mail : from Oct 12 00:05:27 to Oct 12 21:10:54
> Total number
John writes:
> I have been running spamassassin 2.55 for some time (am about to go to
> 2.60).
Do. 2.60 fixes quite a few things, shuts down now-long-gone
RBLs, improves scoring, and (even though I was originally a
skeptic) performs well enough (sans Bayes).
> Everything has been working
Hello,
> > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no
> > version=2.60
> >
> > Why is SpamAssassin running no tests on the mail?
>
> It probably ran all the tests on the mail but none of them matched
> the mail.
>
> > And why is autolearn set to no?
>
> It's not set to off as
> -Original Message-
> From: John Scully
>
> I have been running spamassassin 2.55 for some time (am about to go to
> 2.60).
>
I'd recommend trying out 2.60, and seeing if things get better.
In particular, it has a pattern which matches HTML redirection
through a a Yahoo! site. Last ti
Hello,
I created a list which might be helpful, using a dictionary I searched for
letter pairs which did not exist. I created the following meta rule to
search for these non-existant pairs, it might do just what you are looking
for.
body __OBFU_J /j(b|c|f|g|w)/i
body __OBFU_OTHER /(vj|vk|xj|xk
On Monday 13 October 2003 13:44, Rich Puhek wrote:
> No. Read carefully, Wacker didn't say that, the author of the article
> did.
On more careful reading, you're right.
I apologize for my rant.
> Heh, I've been pro-Sendmail for a long time. The only thing that
> comes close to changing my mind
Hi John,
It might be better to look at the source of the message, find a pattern,
create a custom rule, and then score it high (after some testing).
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: John Scully
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] imag
Does ANYONE know if X-Transfer-number and X-Transfer-stamp are
1) Valid in normal email use?
2) Worth coding rules for?
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 11:04, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just had a spam get through that had an absolute bucketload of headers
> all of type x-transfer-number and x-transfer-s
Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Monday 13 October 2003 07:16, Todd Schuldt wrote:
Full article at:
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089977.html
So let me get this straight,
Rand Wacker, director of product strategy and planning for e-mail
software maker Sendmail, says
The attack on the software
I currently have RBL checks turned off on our SA 2.6. We do our RBL
checks at the firewall. Can SA do the RBL checks from within our
network behind a virus appliance, or does it just check the last hop
that was made. The reason I ask this is that I do not have control over
our firewall so I can
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:02:05PM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote:
> Does anyone know of a list of either:
> 1) existing/allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
> 2) non-existing/not-allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
>
> For the English language preferably.
I'd google on "English digraph f
We call Spam Assassin from procmail (and call procmail from .forward).
Out .procmailrc contains
:0 fw:sa_foo.lock
* < 256000
| /usr/local/bin/spamassassin
We're seeing steadily increasing procmail processes for one user (of several
who use Spam Assassin and procmail)
We're also seeing
Does anyone know of a list of either:
1) existing/allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
2) non-existing/not-allowed consonant/vowel pairs or sequences
For the English language preferably.
Thanks,
Larry
---
This SF.net email is sponsored
Being fairly new to perl, I'm looking for advice.
I've created a rule to blacklist certian domains which we do not accept
e-mail from. The rule searches for the domain name to appear anywhere in
the message body.
Is it more effecient to use a large complex rule like:
(domain1\.com|domain2\.com|d
Is anyone else seeing lots of timeouts for razor today? Seems to be timing
out a lot today. I tried changing the discovery servers, etc... but no
noticable difference.
Rob
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Sourc
I have been running spamassassin 2.55 for some time (am about to go to
2.60).
We are on sendmail 8.9.12 with DCC.
Everything has been working well, with most spam being blocked. Most of
the nasty stuff that gets through is image only PORN spam.
Is it possible to tell SA to score an image only m
I've got the following in my local.cf, running SA as root (from init.d
script), and it never comes up saying that it's using auto-learn, and
the bayes files never seem to change... What's going on with this?
Using SA 2.60 with XMail 1.17 right now... It works well, SA marks the
appropriate message
I don't think that was his point. I believe he indicated that security
flaws are found quicker in open source than closed source. Which is true.
He also said the counter to that is that a project that is actively
developed closes those security flaws quicker than closed source. In the
end, he ad
--On Monday, October 13, 2003 11:32 AM -0700 Ray Dzek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would 2.60 only score this a 4.8? Nice attempt at Bayes obfuscation,
> but I don't run Bayes here.
We're running 2.55 here...
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.0 required=5.0
tests=ACT_NOW_CAPS,BAD_CREDIT,
Why would 2.60 only score this a 4.8? Nice attempt at Bayes obfuscation,
but I don't run Bayes here.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by pop.specialized.com (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 52F653DE8; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mai
On Monday 13 October 2003 07:16, Todd Schuldt wrote:
> Full article at:
> URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089977.html
So let me get this straight,
Rand Wacker, director of product strategy and planning for e-mail
software maker Sendmail, says
The attack on the software's filtering proce
Jeff Koch wrote:
We use qmail, vpopmail, and qmail-scanner(also spamassassin but it's not
relevant to this question). We're finding that emails forwarded through
qmail to Hotmail accounts are getting picked up by Hotmail's enhanced
spam filter. These are simple text emails and Hotmail does not a
Well, it depends. If you run sa-learn and you're concerned that it's
not running, use the --showdots switch and it'll give you a progress
indicator. Just go ahead and sa-learn --ham a couple hundred hams real
quick, it'll start up from there. No further config necessary.
-tom
> -Original
Thanks for the tip.. I guess it was an addressing/permission issue.. I see
now, when I --lint -D that there are < 200 in my HAM db and the SPAM has now
gone over 200 so I am assuming it works.. do I need to do a..
sa-learn --spam to actually implement the database?
then a sa-learn --ham once that
Jon Fraley writes:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 09:58, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> > Jon Fraley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that we do business with alot of people with aol.com
> > > email addresses. Practically all of these are getting flagged
> > > as SPAM with:
> > >
> > > 4.1 NO_R
Hi Jennifer,
I think I have found a rule that works well for HTML tags, scripts, and all
the junk including EOL between tags.
/ \w{1,7}<\/?[\w\W]{0,150}>\w{1,7}/
The thing that was really throwing me of was the possibility of the leading
'>' from '[>\s]' at the beginning of the rule. I finall
Anybody have any advice on what to set these thresholds at?
Currently I run SA's Spam Threshold at 5.5, the default Bayes numbers are .1
for HAM, and 12 for SPAM.. I put mine to 1.0 for HAM and 6.5 for SPAM.. is
that reasonable?
Thanks!
---
T
landy a écrit:
File /var/log/mail : from Oct 12 00:05:27 to Oct 12 21:10:54
Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 171
Number of spams :36 ( 21.05%)
Number of clean messages: 135 ( 78.95%)
...
Hello
what script do you use to
Sorry, I only have a question for you and not an answer. Why do you think
it is qmail? Can you send the exact same message through a different MTA
with different results? Also, are you tagging outbound messages with SA?
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Koch [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
Hello all,
First off, i am very new to amavisd and spamassaasin so
please bear with me and excuse me if i am asking
an assanine question :)
I am currently running postfix+amavisd+spamassassin.
(SA is not running as spamd.) Under this configuration
i am not using a local.cf file in /etc but rath
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > Given that spammers are now using hijacked machines as HTTP proxy servers,
> > you're more likely to DDOS several dozen poor schmucks' home cable modem
>
> No... I think you missed something here. If the spam was hawking the "ABC
> Corp. wrinkle removal
This is really off subject but concerns spam filtering. I hope you guys
don't get too annoyed.
We use qmail, vpopmail, and qmail-scanner(also spamassassin but it's not
relevant to this question). We're finding that emails forwarded through
qmail to Hotmail accounts are getting picked up by Hotm
Jack Gostl Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:38 PM:
> We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
Some quick queries of my logfile database say we're at over 75%. Most of you
are lucky. I'm sure there are some among u
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 09:58, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> Jon Fraley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems that we do business with alot of people with aol.com
> > email addresses. Practically all of these are getting flagged
> > as SPAM with:
> >
> > 4.1 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELOHost HELO'd as a
Hello!
My apologies if this question is answered in the archives, but I could not
search on the exact phrase, and so I got a large collection of articles
with any of the words 'subject' or 'check', etc.
The story: I noticed that spamassassin was not performing one of my
favourties checks: The
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> > By the way, there is an interesting article on "fighting back" by Paul
> > Graham called "Filters That Fight Back."
> >
> > http://www.paulgraham.com/ffb.html
> >
> > He basically suggests culling URLs
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:24:27AM -0400, Scott Blomquist wrote:
>
>
> Simon Byrnand wrote:
>
> >>We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> >>have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
> >
> >
> > Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not cou
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jack Gostl wrote:
> By the way, there is an interesting article on "fighting back" by Paul
> Graham called "Filters That Fight Back."
>
> http://www.paulgraham.com/ffb.html
>
> He basically suggests culling URLs from spam and kicking off something
> like wget to retri
Simon Byrnand wrote:
We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not counting viruses,
which get blocked before spamassassin even runs.
Kinda makes you wonder where
Full article at:
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089977.html
Regards,
Todd
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have HELPED US provi
Has -a been deprecated and now a default option?
I am still starting spamd with the -a option and I am wondering if I still need it.
--Mike
Jon Fraley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that we do business with alot of people with aol.com
> email addresses. Practically all of these are getting flagged
> as SPAM with:
>
> 4.1 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELOHost HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no
> rDNS 2.4 FAKE_HELO_AOL Host HELO
Yes, Larry, it's a firewall configuration issue. If you receive responses
from a few public DCC servers, your firewall is likely allowing DCC to do
its job.
- Mark Rice
> --
> From: Larry Gilson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > According to reports from other people, the SpamAssas
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote:
> Jack Gostl Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:15 AM
>
> > All of which makes me wonder exactly who is motivated to fix this mess. I
> > suppose that any day now someone will say that spam is the engine of
> > economic recovery. (G)
>
> _We_ are. The
It seems that we do business with alot of people with aol.com email
addresses. Practically all of these are getting flagged as SPAM with:
4.1 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELOHost HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no rDNS
2.4 FAKE_HELO_AOL Host HELO did not match rDNS: aol.com
We have required_hits
Jack Gostl Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:15 AM
> All of which makes me wonder exactly who is motivated to fix this mess. I
> suppose that any day now someone will say that spam is the engine of
> economic recovery. (G)
_We_ are. The more people that we can get to implement this sort of
filteri
I posted this the other day and haven't heard any comments. Anyone else
come across this?
I've seen this error several times while trying to run sa-learn on large
"mbox" loads of messages:
unlock: 69574 unlink failed: /u/gostl/.spamassassin/bayes.lock
What seems to be happening here is
> Kinda makes you wonder where the world is heading when more
> email is junk than legitimate :/
>
I see the email world heading towards secure email. A world where you cannot
send an email until/unless your mailer software has a key installed that
validates all mail leaving your site. If you re
At 09:55 PM 10/12/2003, Robert Nicholson wrote:
Q. With the SA whitelist, will mail that contains addresses that are on
the whitelist ever be checked for spam?
Yes. The SA whitelist only performs a score-biasing method, but the
messages are still checked. This applies to both the conventional, an
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> > have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
>
> Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not counting viruses,
> which get blocked before spamassassin even
At 07:06 PM 10/10/2003, Dan Tappin wrote:
I have tried:
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in my config files.
Any ideas???
Those should work.. have you run spamassassin --lint? It's possible there's
a typo in your config file and SA winds up skipping chunks
Hi,
I have installed on Redhat 9 - Sendmail 8.12.8 these packages:
spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpmspamass-milter-0.2.0-3.i386.rpm
All worked correctly until installing and delete some Perl module from system.
Now spamd don't start and give this error:
> (i386-linux-thread-multi-2.4.21-1.19
>
> We run around 50%. And that's by count. With the MS worms flying in we
> have noticably more spam by volume than real mail.
Our current stats are 57% Spam, 43% ham. And thats not counting viruses,
which get blocked before spamassassin even runs.
Kinda makes you wonder where the world is headi
Hi,
I am using SA 2.60, updated vom 2.55 some weeks ago. I was also using
various rc-versions of 2.60.
In local.cf I have no values assigned to the use of the Bayes-db so I
am running on default values.
When I try to clean up the Bayes db I get this:
router:/disk/log # sa-learn -D --force-exp
Hi, as the subject says:
I'm running a spamd-process on a dedicated server, with the clients running on
another machine. The load seems to be a little less than 1 mail/second, but
since the server is a 2 x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz, things seem to run
okay, most of the time.
But once in a
Hi ML,
I use SA 2.55 and have updated some perl modules
(libnet, HTML-Parser ...).
Now SA doesn't check the Bayes database and most
spam gets through. Is there a problem with 2.55 and
newer perl modules ?
Thx
- Michael
---
This SF.net email
How i can add my rule:
Example: when receive mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - add this email
1.5 hits?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have
92 matches
Mail list logo
