On Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:13 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> It seems likely that any X-{random string of characters} header is for
> spam tracking purposes only. I wonder whether a test for an X- header
> name with four or five consecutive consonants would be a valid spamsign
> test.
In at lea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Keith,
Thanks, that did it. No immediate benefit, since running that rule
against my 40k corpus it finds just one spam and zero ham, but at least I
have a starting point for analysis.
I was under the impression that Header All would test the c
Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder whether a test for
> an X- header name with four or five consecutive consonants would
> be a valid spamsign test.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't find any way to implement this test. Can
> anyone suggest a method?
Something like this?
header WEI
I am attempting to setup SA for my entire network with a Qmail mailserver.
I did the following:
mv qmail-queue qmail-queue.orig
ln -s SpamAssassin.sh qmail-queue
chown qmaild:qmail SpamAssassin.sh
chmod 4711 SpamAssassin.sh
And SpamAssassin.sh contains:
# /bin/sh
/usr/bin/s
I can't help you with the subject issue (I have the same problem with
2.60), but for the version number in the header, that's a qmail-scanner
thing...you need to rebuild qmail-scanner.pl with the new spamd running
and it will fix that.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Posts wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to the li
Received the attached FN today. Most notable attribute I find is that it
includes an X-pvkhgmeblyqcmv header.
It seems likely that any X-{random string of characters} header is for
spam tracking purposes only. I wonder whether a test for an X- header
name with four or five consecutive consonants
I'm running all three in various places, and they've all got their pros
and cons. Personally though, for a pass-through relay server, I'd
probably lean toward Sendmail. With Sendmail's ability to do account
lookups through LDAP, you can reject mail to invalid accounts right at
the border. Co
Robert Leonard III wrote:
I am wondering, what, in your opinions, is the best choice for building SA..
I am using it for a Site-Wide proxy, to pass on to my MS Exchange server.
No local mail accounts, simply pass-through.
Qmail?
Postfix?
Sendmail?
I'm running all three in various places, and
I guess "best" is all relative, but personally I use Postfix on Redhat 9. I
was new to linux so I wanted something secure and simple, which Postfix was
(compared to sendmail), but it's also powerful enough to allow some real
flexability once you get going.
I have it configured to filter and pass
I'm not hoping to start any major arguments here, but I have to, or may need
to, rebuild my entire SA box from scratch.. I use Redhat 9, though I have
SUSE 9 at my disposal..
I am wondering, what, in your opinions, is the best choice for building SA..
I am using it for a Site-Wide proxy, to pass o
Hi,
I'm new to the list. I loaded spamassassin 2.55 with the latest versions
of qmail, vpopmail, qmail-scanner, and clamav.
When I receive emails I see the spamassassin messages in the headers but
the subject isn't rewritten. I know the local.cf file is being used
because when I change the requir
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Ihsan Dogan wrote:
> I'm using Spamassassin 2.55 with spamd/spamc. I started spamd
> with this options: -u nobody --user-config -c
> The users on this system, starting spamc from their .procmailrc.
>
> My problem is, that something is changing the permissions of
> ~/.spamassas
On Saturday 01 November 2003 16:58, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Saturday, November 01, 2003 11:40 AM -0600 Masoud Pajoh
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After a lot fulling with rpm's, at last I installed the latest Perl and
> > then SA using CPAN.
>
> It would be useful to know what went wrong
On 2 Nov 2003 web4.hm - Peter Padberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is this list longer supported?
>
> I seems so that on this list more questions about SA than answers!?
I think that the problem is that the majority of questions asked
on this list are covered in the documentation. And the attitud
Hi folks!
Is this list longer supported?
I seems so that on this list more questions about SA than answers!?
Or do I go wrong?
Viele Gruesse,
Peter.
--
_
web4.hm
Pyrmonter Str. 42
D-31789 Hameln
fon: +49-5151 60 99 70-0
Hi,
I'm using Spamassassin 2.55 with spamd/spamc. I started spamd
with this options: -u nobody --user-config -c
The users on this system, starting spamc from their .procmailrc.
My problem is, that something is changing the permissions of
~/.spamassassin/bayer_journal to 600 (nobody:nobody). With
Hi,
SA 2.60
Postfix 2.0.16
I've got various local daemons that occasionally send email from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Works like a charm. Unfortu-
nately, SA flags them as spam:
Content analysis details: (5.0 points, 4.9 required)
pts rule name description
--
Hi!
Trying to run "make test" on a 2.60 installation gives me these errors
(RedHat 8.0);
t/spamd_protocol_10.ok 1/10 Not found: symbolshit = GTUBE
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 385
Not found: response-11 = SPAMD/1.1 0 EX_OK
# Failed test 3 in t/SATest.pm at line 38
18 matches
Mail list logo
