RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

Just to followup the user's home dir path that spamd runs as, "nospam" wasn't properly update when the users were moved. doh! Fixing that allows the Subject rewrite to work. (The "working directory" error below was just sudo complaining that I was using a variable in a command path ($PWD) and had

NDN: [SAtalk] "Failed to run BAYES_NN SpamAssassin test, skipping" problems

Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: Kevin Lewis (Mailbox or Conference is full.) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code?

[SAtalk] spamc/spamd performance testing

Hi, I have been running some performance tests on spamc/spamd and I wanted to make sure my results were consistent with expected performance. All tests were run on: Dual 2.8 Ghz Xeon (4 logical CPUs) box w/2GB RAM Redhat 8.0, Spam Assassin 2.60 I've been using the spamc/spamd combination.

RE: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 03:40 PM 10/29/2003, David Hubbard wrote: > >How can one look at the envelope sender of a message > >in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for > >that? > > That's fundamentally impossible in SpamAssassin.. SA isn't > provided the env

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/ports 526$ ps auwx |grep [s]pamd > >nospam 184 0.0 1.3 21236 20920 ?? Is 20Oct03 3:51.50 > >/usr/local/bin/spamd -a -c -d -u nospam -H (perl5.00503) > Is the -H parameter passed to spamd with no parameter? or is >

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

At 08:48 PM 10/29/2003, Riley J. McIntire wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/ports 526$ ps auwx |grep [s]pamd nospam 184 0.0 1.3 21236 20920 ?? Is 20Oct03 3:51.50 /usr/local/bin/spamd -a -c -d -u nospam -H (perl5.00503) Is the -H parameter passed to spamd with no parameter? or is it just being

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > That procmailrc looks more-or-less fine to me.. It's what worked ok with 2.4x/fbsd 4.6. > The only thing you need to do is make sure that spamd is > running.. if spamd > goes down, all your calls to spamc will do nothing. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/p

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

At 07:28 PM 10/29/2003, Riley J. McIntire wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin 578$ ps ax |grep [s]pamc 38938 ?? S 0:00.00 /usr/local/bin/spamc So if I'm not badly mistaken I am using spamc. But not the right way? Is there a problem with the procmailrc? That procmailrc l

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

Someone suggested a range to me awhile back when I asked about this, sorry I cant give props to whoever it was. /\bp[e3]n[\xCC-\xCF\xEC-\xEF][sz52]\b/i Jennifer > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamassassin- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Radford > Sent:

RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote: > Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM > > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has > > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles? > Per

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

> From: Jason Staudenmayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > spamd is the demon spamc is the client Right, it's called from procmailrc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin 571$ cat /usr/local/etc/procmailrc DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw | /usr/local/bin/spamc EOF [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/

Re: [SAtalk] "Failed to run BAYES_NN SpamAssassin test, skipping" problems

At 05:23 PM 10/29/2003, Greg Earle wrote: I've run "truss" on the running "spamd" and I'm not seeing anything in the truss output that points to where it's looking for the ndbm file that it doesn't like. The only lines that are relevant to Bayes-named files are: 18263: open("//.spamassassin/bayes

Re: [SAtalk] SA Upgrade 2.41->2.60 Stops Adding Headers

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:10:53PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote: > provided, and it adds the headers just fine. Running spamd with -D, and I > can see it detecting spam just fine, it just won't add the default headers. hrm. if passing through spamc doesn't add the headers, I would look in that di

RE: [SAtalk] SA Upgrade 2.41->2.60 Stops Adding Headers

Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:20:19PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote: >> that didn't work. I can see in my logs that ifspamh is detecting >> spam just fine, what's not happening is the headers being added to >> every spam email. > > What happens if you run mail through SpamAss

Re: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >would be nice if it were a standard across all MTA's... something like >X-Envelope-Helo: >X-Envelope-Mail-From: >X-Envelope-Rcpt-To: Yes, it would ;) BTW, HELO and RCPT TO are often reproduced in the Received headers. However, MAIL FROM is no

Re: [SAtalk] SA Upgrade 2.41->2.60 Stops Adding Headers

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:20:19PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote: > that didn't work. I can see in my logs that ifspamh is detecting spam just > fine, what's not happening is the headers being added to every spam email. What happens if you run mail through SpamAssassin manually? -- Randomly Gener

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

At 10/29/03 10:53 AM , Chris Santerre wrote: I have to change a rule and I want to do it nicely. So suggestions needed. The rule is : SUBJECT_XXX and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : /pen.s/i Which was just trying to get past obfuscations. Well, anything that mentions: "O

Re: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Gregory writes: >But this duplicate went through (in chronological order): > sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net(66.35.250.206) > netmail00.services.quay.plus.net(212.159.14.218) > mail.force9.net [212.159.10.2] >De

Re: [SAtalk] SA-LEARN Actually Crashes System!

At 11:02 29/10/2003 -0600, Bill Polhemus wrote: I am running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD 2100+ based system with a half-gig of RAM.   This has now happened for the second time. Before when it happened, about two weeks ago, I figured it was just a coincidence. Now, Im

Re: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Kettler writes: >At 03:40 PM 10/29/2003, David Hubbard wrote: >>How can one look at the envelope sender of a message >>in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for >>that? > >That's fundamentally impossible in SpamAssassin.. SA isn't provi

[SAtalk] "Failed to run BAYES_NN SpamAssassin test, skipping" problems

Hi - I'm new to the list, because I've just run into my first (known) problem with SpamAssassin: I'm running SpamAssassin 2.60 on a Solaris 7 system integrated with Courier 0.42.2. Everything's been more or less peachy, but starting about a week ago, all of a sudden I've been getting the followin

RE: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

> -Original Message- > From: David Hubbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender? > > > How can one look at the envelope sender of a message > in a rule? Is there a variable a

RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles? Per my post just the other day, I have been receiving man

[SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > Actually, I'm sorry Charles. You may have gotten 4 copies from me! I tried to take that into account. Including your 'direct' replies, the count is actually up to 5 or 6. The interesting thing, if you look at those headers is that there are about 4 or 5

Re: [SAtalk] What on earth is this? FW: Undeliverable Mail: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

Chris Santerre wrote: I'm not sure if this is a Spam or legit! Anyone ever got one of these from the list? A bounce message from someone whose susbcribed e-mail address is no longer valid? Sure, I see them all the time. This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above

Re: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:41 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > > Actually, I'm sorry Charles. You may have gotten 4 copies from me! > > I tried to take that into account. Including your 'direct' replies, the > count is actually u

Re: [SAtalk] Auto-Learn

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:13:03PM -0600, Bill Polhemus wrote: > How can I know for sure if Auto-Learn is functioning correctly? Run with -D. it'll tell you if it's doing autolearning. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Son, this is the only time I'm ever gonna say this. It is not okay to lose.

Re: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

At 03:40 PM 10/29/2003, David Hubbard wrote: How can one look at the envelope sender of a message in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for that? That's fundamentally impossible in SpamAssassin.. SA isn't provided the envelope. The only way SA can know about the envelope is if you have

RE: [SAtalk] What on earth is this? FW: Undeliverable Mail: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

Definitely SPAM, and of a particularly nasty sort. Somehow someone is snagging emails off the archive or some other way, and fabricating these replies. Bad business. William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E. Polhemus Engineering Company Katy, Texas USA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai

[SAtalk] SA2.6 on Mandrake 9.1

Hi, I'm hoping to get someone to help me out with intalling, config and understanding a bit more about SA on this same distro. If you use MDK9.1+qmail+qmail-scanner+SA2.6 and you have time to talk to me personally on ICQ, MSN or IRC. Please let me know, I need some help on this matter. Thanks in

[SAtalk] Problem with SpamAssassin + Vpopmail + Procmail + Qmail

Hello, it is since yesterday that i try and try, but i cannot solve it! I am running QMail + Vpopmail on Linux; i have created a .qmail-default file like this: |/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/bin/procmail -p -m /var/vpopmail/domains/.procmailrc and a .procmailrc file like this: VERBOSE=on LOGFILE

Re: [2.2] [SAtalk] What on earth is this? FW: Undeliverable Mail: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > I'm not sure if this is a Spam or legit! Anyone ever got one of these from > the list? I got one of these too. I think a list subscriber has a broken 'bounce' mechanism, or their domain just cavved, but the message did not provide any details on whose

Re: [0.0] RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings.

Hi Chris! Okay, here we go again. Three copies of the mail: Direct from your server to mine. Direct from sourceforge list server to mine. Plus the unexpected third copy: Routed from sourceforge through force9.co.uk then to me. I'm CC'ing this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the force9.co.uk pos

[SAtalk] Re: Re: sendmail and spamassassin

Antony Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.mailscanner.info will link sendmail with spamassassin > without using procmail, gives great flexibility in the configuration > rules, and allows good integration of anti-virus products at the same > time. I think this may have just answered a qu

[SAtalk] report vs check with spamd/spamc

i searched the archives for an answer, but may have missed it. please excuse me if i'm brining up an already answered question. i have recently ditched the perl api in favor of the spamd/spamc combination for our mail system. one of the advantages of the previous setup was that i could easily choo

RE: [SAtalk] grouping rules

Hi Joe, I think you might want to look at Meta rules. http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm http://www.exit0.us/ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/SA-rules-howto.txt --Larry > -Original Message- > From: Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesda

Re: [SAtalk] grouping rules

Check the link in my sig. There is a link to Matt's guide and the wiki. What you are looking for is called META rules. Thank you again.. would have never thought they would be called 'meta rules' :) --- Joe Topjian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://zaven.us --

RE: [SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

I can tell you how to pass the information to SA it if you use Postfix and Procmail. Otherwise, you will need to figure out how to make your MTA pass that information along to SA. You will also need a custom rule. MAIL FROM and RCPT TO data are not passed along as part of a message. --Larry

[SAtalk] What on earth is this? FW: Undeliverable Mail: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

I'm not sure if this is a Spam or legit! Anyone ever got one of these from the list? It was tagged as spam. I sent other messages to the list today, this is the first bounce I recieved.(Other then Kevin's mailbox being full!! By the way, his Phone number is on his site!) I'm thinking it is garbag

Re: [SAtalk] grouping rules

At 03:02 PM 10/29/2003, Joe wrote: Hi, Is there a way to group rules together for only certain instances? For example, I want score the porn rules higher on a certain domain.. so I guess I would need something like header DOMAIN From =~ /filtereddomain.com/i But is there a way I could then do s

RE: [SAtalk] Question Re: SpamAssassin Port on FreeBSD 4.9

spamassassin -D is your friend. Use it to show whether your SQL access is working or not. Once it is, spamd will probably work, or you can try spamd -D, and run spamc from a different window. - dan -- Dan Kohn -Original Messag

Re: [-6.8] Re: [SAtalk] Call for suggestions: reducing side-effects of "hijacked" email address

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > Look at any message that matches various patterns for a DSN (Subject =~ > /undeliverable/, etc.). > If it does not contain the IP address of his network or outgoing relay, > drop it, it's a bounced forgery. Again, this works in *most* cases, but there are

RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings.

> Okay, this is about the third or fourth copy of Chris' message. > I'm pasting the full headers in case some list guru can tell from them > where this message might have gotten duplicated. > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: *snip* I never write anything that important (-: Actual

RE: [SAtalk] grouping rules

> > Is there a way to group rules together for only certain instances? > For example, I want score the porn rules higher on a certain domain.. > so I guess I would need something like > > header DOMAIN From =~ /filtereddomain.com/i > > But is there a way I could then do something like > score F

[SAtalk] Duplicate postings.

Okay, this is about the third or fourth copy of Chris' message. I'm pasting the full headers in case some list guru can tell from them where this message might have gotten duplicated. On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > Return-Path: <> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: fr

Re: [SAtalk] Auto-Learn

At Wed Oct 29 14:15:51 2003, Bill Polhemus wrote: > > Are there other criteria, though? > > For example, I have set the threshold at which Auto-Learn is > "triggered" for Spam at 7.99. Anything scoring over that is > designated to be "auto-learned." > > Yet one came through this morning at 12.9,

[SAtalk] Question Re: SpamAssassin Port on FreeBSD 4.9

Hello I have installed SpamAssassin from the FreeBSD port (/usr/ports/mail/spamass-milter/) and it is generally working fine. I tried to set up SQL user preferences by adding the following to my /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file (which I know is the correct one because all the other

[SAtalk] Rule for looking at envelope sender?

How can one look at the envelope sender of a message in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for that? I'm trying to block messages from what I call the stderr spammer because they use hundreds of domain names and keep changing ISP's but the emails always use an envelope sender of [EMAIL P

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SA loads & times

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check for lock files. There seems to be a 20 second timeout if (in my case, it was the whitelist lockfile) gets stale. Look for minutes/days old lockfiles, and clean them out. I had steady 29+second spamd times, turned off all lookup etc, nothing changed. Snooped in

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

> > Obvious examples are covered by /pen[i1l]s/i - presumably not > too many things > need adding to the middle regex to match the strings you're > interested in? > > Just a thought. > > Antony. > One would think that. But I had never heard of an "galiec i" or whatever the heck they were us

[SAtalk] grouping rules

Hi, Is there a way to group rules together for only certain instances? For example, I want score the porn rules higher on a certain domain.. so I guess I would need something like header DOMAIN From =~ /filtereddomain.com/i But is there a way I could then do something like score FREE_PORN 3.0 a

Re: [SAtalk] SA-LEARN Actually Crashes System!

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:58:35AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Bill Polhemus writes: > > I am running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD 2100+ > > based system with a half-gig of RAM. > > Could you post the output of "rp

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

At Wed Oct 29 19:33:00 2003, Antony Stone wrote: > > Rather than focusing on what you *don't* want to catch with this > rule, how about concentrating on what you do want to catch? > > Obvious examples are covered by /pen[i1l]s/i - presumably not too > many things need adding to the middle regex t

Re: [SAtalk] SA-LEARN Actually Crashes System!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Polhemus writes: > I am running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD 2100+ > based system with a half-gig of RAM. Could you post the output of "rpm -qa"? And you're not using any hand-compiled components, it's all RPMs, right

Re: [SAtalk] Re: sendmail and spamassassin

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 7:33 pm, Chris Barnes wrote: > Dominique Bagnato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you to tell me how to "link" sendmail" on Solaris to > > spamassassin. I don't have procmail on my mail server. > > Why not? I can't imagine a good reason to have a mail server witho

Re: [SAtalk] Call for suggestions: reducing side-effects of "hijacked" email address

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fabian Fagerholm writes: >I'm looking for suggestions on how to solve the issue or to reduce the >amount of spam-bounces this user sees. The tools at my disposal are >SpamAssassin and Sieve filters. And, if it comes to that, a lawyer. Look at any mes

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

At 01:53 PM 10/29/2003, Chris Santerre wrote: SUBJECT_XXX and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : /pen.s/i Rather than do the ^oO thing, why not modify your . to exclude spaces: /pen\Ss/ This will look for a "non whitespace" in that spot. I'd also suggest putting a \b at

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

> -Original Message- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 01:53 PM 10/29/2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > >SUBJECT_XXX > >and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : > >/pen.s/i > > Rather than do the ^oO thing, why not modify your . to exclude spaces:

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 6:53 pm, Chris Santerre wrote: > I have to change a rule and I want to do it nicely. So suggestions needed. > The rule is : > SUBJECT_XXX > and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : > /pen.s/i > Which was just trying to get past obfuscations. Well

[SAtalk] Re: sendmail and spamassassin

Dominique Bagnato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you to tell me how to "link" sendmail" on Solaris to > spamassassin. I don't have procmail on my mail server. Why not? I can't imagine a good reason to have a mail server without procmail. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

At 01:02 PM 10/29/2003, you wrote: Sorry Im a newbie. I have attached my local.cf and my 20_compensate rule. Thanks again. (I have no custom rules) Well, you do have some attempts in there at making a custom rule.. and a very, very, very broken one. I'd delete the entire "Penis" rule you've got i

Re: [SAtalk] SA-LEARN Actually Crashes System!

First of all, please don't post in HTML. Bill Polhemus was manually quoted as having said: > I am running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD > 2100+ based system with a half-gig of RAM. Personally, I've avoided RH > 7.3 for server work- RH8 and RH9 have seen any number of rea

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

--On Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:53 PM -0500 Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to change a rule and I want to do it nicely. So suggestions needed. > The rule is : > SUBJECT_XXX > and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : > /pen.s/i > Which was just tryin

[SAtalk] [RD] Open source is Naughty!!!

I have to change a rule and I want to do it nicely. So suggestions needed. The rule is : SUBJECT_XXX and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is : /pen.s/i Which was just trying to get past obfuscations. Well, anything that mentions: "Open source" in subject gets tagged as naught

RE: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

> Sorry Im a newbie. We are all a newbie in something dealing with computers :) I have attached my local.cf and my 20_compensate > rule. Thanks again. (I have no custom rules) Yes you do! "rawbodyPorn- Penis /penis/ describePorn- Penis

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 6:02 pm, Tobin wrote: > Sorry Im a newbie. I have attached my local.cf and my 20_compensate > rule. Thanks again. (I have no custom rules) You have too many penises in your rules :) You have written: rawbody Porn- Penis /penis/ This should be:

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

At 11:36 AM 10/29/2003, Tobin wrote: I was wondering if anyone could help me fix a broken rule. Im getting a error "Failed to compile body spamassassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /ect/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule Porn, line 1, near "/) Well, what's the broken rule look like? Can't exact

RE: [SAtalk] Call for suggestions: reducing side-effects of "hija cked" email address

> > I'm looking for suggestions on how to reduce the side-effects of > spammers using a real person's email address as From: address. Let me > explain the issue: > > One of our customers is receiving approximately 1000 bounce > messages per > day for emails he didn't send. Spammers are using his

[SAtalk] Razor2 patch applied, still getting Bad file descriptor errors

Hello all, I've upgraded to SA 2.60, and I thought I'd followed the directions for applying the Razor2 patch included in the src. But apparently, I've not done everything correctly because I still get the: razor2 check skipped: Bad file descriptor Insecure dependency in connect while running set

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

Sorry Im a newbie. I have attached my local.cf and my 20_compensate rule. Thanks again. (I have no custom rules) >>> Patrick Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/29/2003 12:13:23 PM >>> Tobin wrote: >Hello, > >I was wondering if anyone could help me fix a broken rule. Im getting a >error > >"Failed

Re: [SAtalk] testing/installation error

Fred Marton wrote: Great! Thanks. Only now, when I try to run spamd, I get: Could not create INET socket: Cannot assign requested address IO::Socket::INET: Cannot assign requested address Either it's already running, or something else is running on the port spamd wants. This message is i

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

> From: Jason Staudenmayer > qmail-scanner.pl find the spamassassin binary line and remove the '-c' > I have the same problem but with sendmail using spamd (2.60): .../spamd -a -c -d -u nospam -H && echo -n ' spamd' my local.cf looks like this: # report_safe 1 # Add your own customisations to

[SAtalk] [RD] Excessive HTML tags --

I dug through my archived spam quarantines with the following search: egrep "<.><\/.>.{0,10}<.><\/.>.{0,10}<.><\/.>" -c /var/backup/spam* /var/backup/spam-030626:14 /var/backup/spam-030706:14 /var/backup/spam-030713:0 /var/backup/spam-030720:2 /var/backup/spam-030727:0 /var/backup/spam-030810:1 /

Re: [SAtalk] testing/installation error

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:46:22 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Have you tried the debs from backports.org? They work fine for me. Great! Thanks. Only now, when I try to run spamd, I get: Could not create INET socket: Cannot assign requested address IO::Socket::INET: Cannot assign requested

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:36:59AM -0500, Tobin wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering if anyone could help me fix a broken rule. Im getting a > error > > "Failed to compile body spamassassin tests, skipping: > (syntax error at /ect/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule Porn, line 1, > near "/) > > and

RE: [0.6] [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Mark Ritchie wrote: > > Now, as you can see the trick here to fool spamassassin is > the and > > tags. Would it be possible to make a rule or adjust > the rules so > > the scores high? There is nothing inbetween and I'd have to > > say anyone sending messages like

Re: [SAtalk] Broken Rule

Tobin wrote: Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help me fix a broken rule. Im getting a error "Failed to compile body spamassassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /ect/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule Porn, line 1, near "/) Debugging a custom rule would be a lot easier if you showed us

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] 4c-2v-3c

> Do you really want to match punctuation and whitespace, > because both of those will match [^aeiouy]? Nope he doesn't... that was my big bad. Wasn't thinking. Thx Jennifer --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.

[SAtalk] SA-LEARN Actually Crashes System!

I am running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD 2100+ based system with a half-gig of RAM.   This has now happened for the second time. Before when it happened, about two weeks ago, I figured it was just a coincidence. Now, I’m positive that it’s SA-LEARN that is the

[SAtalk] Broken Rule

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help me fix a broken rule. Im getting a error "Failed to compile body spamassassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /ect/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule Porn, line 1, near "/) and "Failed to compile body spamassassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /e

RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

> Yes, this would be possible. > > describe MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAGMY: Excessive HTML Tags > rawbody MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG/<[bi]><\/[bi]>/i > scoreMY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG4.0 > > Backhair did not hit because the number of characters within the tag is > fewer than 6. Creating rules to match fewer

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] 4c-2v-3c

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:50:37 -0500 "Jennifer Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Larry > > > I have had some very good success with a rawbody and subject test > which > > looks for > > > > 4 or more consonants > > followed by 1 or 2 vowels > > followed by 3 or more consonants or digit

Re: [SAtalk] wierd erroors

At 03:56 PM 10/29/03 +, you wrote: Since I upgraded I get mail from cron with numerous errors of this form in it. Insecure dependency in link while running with -T switch at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 452, line 136. Razor requires a source-code patch to work with S

Re: [0.6] [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Mark Ritchie wrote: > Now, as you can see the trick here to fool spamassassin is the and > tags. Would it be possible to make a rule or adjust the rules so > the scores high? There is nothing inbetween and I'd have to > say anyone sending messages like this is obviously a

RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

> > Do you really think it would be a problem if we found more > than 3 instances of in each email to mark it as spam? > Maybe I could just score it lower per instance, say .2 > > There were 58 instances of in this email and 63 > instances of . > A test that counted .1 per instance in a me

[SAtalk] wierd erroors

Hi all, I run this little script in a cron job once a night to learn and report spam. #!/bin/bash if [ -s ${HOME}/mail/spool/spam ]; then fetchmail -q cat ${HOME}/mail/spool/spam | formail -s spamassassin -l ${HOME}/public_html/spam -r cat /dev/null > ${HOME}/mail/spool/spam f

RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Ritchie Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code I've added the popcorn, blackhair, and weeds rules a while back, but I've not

RE: [SAtalk] How can I mark all mails with specific words in the subject as spam?

It isn't SA you want, it's procmail. The formail tool in the procmail package will do anything like this that you want. William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E. Polhemus Engineering Company Katy, Texas USA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gerhard Hofm

Re: [SAtalk] testing/installation error

> "Fred" == Fred Marton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Fred> I'm trying to install SA 2.60 on a Debian woody system and I Fred> have the following problems (both using CPAN and the tarfile Fred> via make test): Fred> t/sha1..Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for F

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] 4c-2v-3c

Hi Jennifer, > -Original Message- > From: Jennifer Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:51 AM > To: 'Larry Gilson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] 4c-2v-3c > > > Hi Larry > > > I have had some very good success with a rawbody and subje

[SAtalk] testing/installation error

I'm trying to install SA 2.60 on a Debian woody system and I have the following problems (both using CPAN and the tarfile via make test): t/sha1..Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is deprecated at t/sha1.t line 34. Can't locate auto/Digest/SHA1/s

RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

Something like this should work, although I am still learning so feel free to correct. rawbody T_OBFU_EMPTY_TAGS /<(i|b|u)><\/\1>/i score T_OBFU_EMPTY_TAGS 0.1 The intended result would be any HTML , or tag followed immediately by a closing tag, with no intervening characters. I did find a s

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

It worked ! Thanks to everybody who helped me to solve the problem. Have a nice day. Daniel P.S. Sorry for my bad english. Jason Staudenmayer wrote: qmail-scanner.pl find the spamassassin binary line and remove the '-c' -Original Message- From: Daniel Poulin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC

RE: Re[2]: [SAtalk] White & black lists on server

My e-mail provider told me where the user_prefs file was and told me to find SpamAssassin on the Web to find out how to do it. I had never edited anything on the web before, so I had to learn how to access and edit that file, which I did. I know they moved a SpamAssassin setting from 2 to 3

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] 4c-2v-3c

Hi Larry > I have had some very good success with a rawbody and subject test which > looks for > > 4 or more consonants > followed by 1 or 2 vowels > followed by 3 or more consonants or digits > > This is the match: > /[0-9bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz]{4,}[aeiouy]{1,2}[0-9bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz]{3,}

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

qmail-scanner.pl find the spamassassin binary line and remove the '-c' -Original Message- From: Daniel Poulin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject. Hi everyone, I ha

RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code

Do you really think it would be a problem if we found more than 3 instances of in each email to mark it as spam? Maybe I could just score it lower per instance, say .2 There were 58 instances of in this email and 63 instances of . -Original Message- From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAI

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin not rewriting the e-mail subject.

All right. I removed the "defang_mime 1" statement from the local.cf file than I ran "spamassassin --lint" got an error for the "report_header 1" statement so I removed it also so my local.cf file now looks like this : # This is the right place to customize your installation of SpamAssassin. #

Re: [SAtalk] Can I delete ham/spam email once I run sa-learn on them w/o impacting the database?

Here is my approach then. Any difficulties you see? Here goes... I will turn autolearn off. >From a daily cron job I will: - first, move anything over a week old to a spam archive - and second, run sa-learn on my SPAM folder This will allow me to occasionally check for false positives and move

[SAtalk] Whitelist vs. Blacklist

Greetings, Dumb question or a clarification (you choose): I have a blacklisted domain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]); however, there are one or two users at that domain who actually have legitimate reasons to send users of my mail servers mail (i.e. they belong to this list). If I globally whiteli

  1   2   >