Hello Larry,
Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 12:34:57 PM, you wrote:
LG> Attached is a custom rule file. It has been working rather well and
LG> I will be increasing the score from 0.5 to 1.0. The cf file also has
LG> some rules looking for words obfuscated by pipes. They have been
LG> working wel
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Nick Tong wrote:
> If so is this possible on a windows platform?
>
> Nick Tong
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick
> Tong
> Sent: 25 November 2003 17:12
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] SpamScore che
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:04:03 -0500, Pedro Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On November 25, 2003 10:31 pm, Alexander Litvinov wrote:
> > Heh, it seems it would be nice to make SA scan messages fatser. If I
> > undersand
your idea correctly, you want not to run regexp one by one, but
> > write th
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 09:32:15PM -0800, Chip Paswater wrote:
> I have bayes_auto_learn turned off in .spamassassin/user_prefs:
ok.
> I see bayes_journal getting some action:
the journal, by default, records atime updates for tokens when scanning
occurs. it's unrelated to learning. :)
--
Ran
> Its relatively straightforward, and has been known for about 30
> years. See the Dragon book, chapter 3. Add a few enhancements and you
> get an engine with the same semantics that SA uses, recognizing
> overlapping and concurrent patterns at all locations in the input.
Thank for point. Its time
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:26:12PM +0800, Fritz Mesedilla wrote:
> What is the difference between .spamassassin's user_prefs:
>
> And amavisd-new's
it sounds like an amavis question, not a SA one.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Anyway, there's plenty of room for doubt. It might seem easy enoug
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:36 +0600, Alexander Litvinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heh, it seems it would be nice to make SA scan messages fatser. If I
> undersand your idea correctly, you want not to run regexp one by
> one, but write the state machine for all regepes and walk on this
> states
Dan Wilder wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:04:13PM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > To everyone here, give the guy a break.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> It's all too easy to make a mistake in print. Give Logan
Is it now? I think you need to go back and read the article again. The
word, blanant
On November 25, 2003 10:31 pm, Alexander Litvinov wrote:
> Heh, it seems it would be nice to make SA scan messages fatser. If I
> undersand
your idea correctly, you want not to run regexp one by one, but
> write the state machine for all regepes and walk on this states by the
> mail, but... I und
Hi Logan,
First, thanks for addressing the list. I think it takes integrity and guts
to respond rather than just run away.
-Original Message-
From: Logan Harbaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 8:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to
--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:55 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
perl -MCPAN -e shell
install /Mail:SpamAssassin/
Equivalent RPM:
rpmbuild -ta \
http://useast.spamassassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.gz
rpm -Uvh spamassassin-tools-2.60-1.i386.rpm spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm \
Heh, it seems it would be nice to make SA scan messages fatser. If I undersand
your idea correctly, you want not to run regexp one by one, but write the
state machine for all regepes and walk on this states by the mail, but... I
undersand how this may be faster (liner time of the message size) i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Wilder writes:
>On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:04:13PM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>> To everyone here, give the guy a break.
>
>Hear, hear!
>
>It's all too easy to make a mistake in print. Give Logan
>some slack for being professional enough to st
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello Aaron,
>
> Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 8:58:58 AM, you wrote:
>
> AY> ... Recently I started getting a lot of false positives with SA 2.60.
> AY> I noticed that all my mail was getting a bayesi
--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:38 PM -0500 Frederick M Avolio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I will try your RPM for 2.60. Looks like I need 3 RPM files --
spamassassin-tools-2.60-1.i386.rpm, spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm, and
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm.
Correct, and true for Theo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Menschel writes:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hello Steve,
>
>Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 10:40:09 AM, you wrote:
>
>ST> I noticed that this guy's using our domain name as the argument to
>ST> the HELO command during the S
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:32:12PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> Googling around led me to a couple of sites that said the man page
> explains the four scores, but I can't find anything. Before I start
> changing scores, I'd like to understand exactly what each one is for.
It's in the docs under th
--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 4:29 PM +1300 Simon Byrnand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd say most people probably don't delete automatically at all, but
rather file spam to a spam folder. My own personal settings at the moment
are that <7 I do nothing, between 7 and 15 it goes into my spam fold
--On Monday, November 24, 2003 11:46 AM -0800 Evan Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[quoting Logan's article]
7. "The whitelist is not difficult to add to, but there is no mechanism
for end-users to add to the whitelist or to automatically notify the
administrator to add senders."
I was amazed at
--On Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:19 PM -0800 Logan Harbaugh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The article as I originally wrote it wasn't intended to be
anti-SpamAssassin, but I'd still have to say that even if the performance
at catching spam and false positives were comparable to the other
packages, i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello skumm,
What email client software are you using? If you can export the original
message(s) with full headers in a proper unix-format mailbox (Netscape,
Bat, Eudora, Pegasus, and many others can do this easily), and FTP the
resulting files back
Googling around led me to a couple of sites that said the man page
explains the four scores, but I can't find anything. Before I start
changing scores, I'd like to understand exactly what each one is for.
Also, is the correct way to change them to copy the lines I want to
change to /etc/mail/spam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Steve,
Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 10:40:09 AM, you wrote:
ST> I noticed that this guy's using our domain name as the argument to
ST> the HELO command during the SMTP transaction. So if the address he's
ST> spamming is [EMAIL PROTECTED], his ra
Title: Message
I use
both, SA first (with ClamA/V), then passes it to Symantec SMTP gateway
(Running on Win2k3) then to exchange. When your talking AV, it's
always good to have a couple of different defenses. But Symantec is an A/V
scanner, not a true Bayesian/point system spam filter, ye
- Original Message -
From: "Scott A Crosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Logan Harbaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:26 AM
Subject: [SAtalk] Re: An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum
> But to everyone else bitching about how SA and Perl is e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Aaron,
Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 8:58:58 AM, you wrote:
AY> ... Recently I started getting a lot of false positives with SA 2.60.
AY> I noticed that all my mail was getting a bayesian score of 99 to
AY> 100%. ...My best guess is that since t
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 02:45:17PM -0500, Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote:
> No matter what bayes_expiry_max_db_size is set to (I tried anything from 100K to
> 3Mil),
> sa-learn reports, after running for quite some time:
> bayes: couldn't find a good delta atime, need more token difference, skipping
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Brian Knittel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to inhibit auto-learning when any specific rule
> is matched? I noted that the auto-whitelist filters inhibit auto-
> learning, but can this be extended to arbitrary other rules?
>
> I'm my network's postmaster and I get nondeliver
Hi all,
Does anybody know what is the difference
(except price ) in terms of services between Symantec AntiVirus for SMTP Gateways and
Spamassassin.
Actually i love to work with Unix platforms but
just wondering if somebody would give me more information.
Gentian
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 19:04, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> To everyone here, give the guy a break.
Seconded! He gave an honest and unemotional response to what are surely
a huge number of (probably less than unemotional) responses to his
review. I daresay that he'll be a little more careful next time
Hello,
I am trying to enable only 2 RBLs (SBL
and DNSBL) however they dont seem to want to get enabled. I added the
following debug code to PerMsgStatus.pm to see whats going on but get the
following results
code
--
in fun
On 25 Nov 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> But to everyone else bitching about how SA and Perl is easy to install
> and 'not a problem'. You're wrong. Unlike the other systems reviewed
> SA isn't a drop-in system or box. It *does* require more effort to set
> up. Stop maligning him for claiming other
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:04:13PM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> To everyone here, give the guy a break.
Hear, hear!
It's all too easy to make a mistake in print. Give Logan
some slack for being professional enough to step forward
and admit it. And some extra points for being willing to
join
Hi,
Is there a way to inhibit auto-learning when any specific rule
is matched? I noted that the auto-whitelist filters inhibit auto-
learning, but can this be extended to arbitrary other rules?
I'm my network's postmaster and I get nondeliverable message
notifications quite frequently. These mess
To everyone here, give the guy a break.
Logan is being honest. He did screw up. It wasn't fair to compare the
classification accuracy of a program almost a year old with ones that
get updated weekly. It also might be a bit unfair to claim that there
is no support or updates. I'm sure a check for a
At Tue Nov 25 16:37:16 2003, Frederick M Avolio wrote:
>
> So, SA 2.60 will only run with RH Linux > 7.3? I suspect it really is a
> problem with the version of Perl I am running. But there is no dependency
> for a particular version of Perl listed. (I am running v5.6.1 built for
> i386-linux.)
On Nov 25, 2003 at 10:31, Stewart, John wrote:
>It has a whole laundry list of prerequisites, and getting all of these
>installed is not completely without pain and frustration. Doing it on a
>non-Linux platform is nigh-impossible. Once you get it all set, it works
>great, but it is *not* as easy
At 04:22 PM 11/25/2003, skumm wrote:
I am unclear as to how to feed mail that is spam and gets by the filters
back into sa so that it can learn them. can someone walk me how to do
this, especially if the mail to be marked as spam is on a windows box now
and not the linux box (I use doze for my m
At 04:47 PM 11/25/2003, Clive Dove wrote:
When I run spamassassin in kmail, I scoop uncaught mail into a folder
"zsa-learn-spam then when I run sa-learn, I use this command:
$ sa-learn --spam --showdots ~/Mail/zsa-learn-spam/cur/
It then processes all the messages in that directory, ignoring the o
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 14:31, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 01:43 PM 11/25/2003, Dan Tappin wrote:
> >When I run sa-learn I only see the '1 message learned' output even thought
> >I forwarded multiple messages to that mailbox.
> >
> >Any ideas / comments?
>
> sa-learn --mbox
>
> unless you add the
Rumor has it that Scott A Crosby may have mentioned these words:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:11:10 -0500, Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
The response was that at a half-second a message is enough.
You prolly didn't get many qmailers to respond, then... If it wasn't for SA
& spam, my "o
Check out the documentation at the razor site. As a result of reading these docs I'm running a small cron script daily:
razor discover:
#! /bin/bash
# refresh /root/.razor/
razor-admin -discover
Viola - no razor problems.
Steve Swaney
s[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:58:53 -05
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony
Bunce
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Ideas
I have been seeing lots of spam like this getting through recently
Anyone have any ideas how to reduce thi
> At 03:27 11/25/2003 -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> ... except one caveat: What was the memory utilization like? That's *my*
> big problem with SA - I had to bump the RAM in my mailserver twice (256M
> ->
> 512M -> 1G) for SA alone, and it's still shakey to the point I cannot
> deploy it sitewide
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Chris Santerre wrote:
> My question is, What are the views of sorbs.net? Is it effective? FPs are my
> worst nightmare. IF it blocks open proxies, (like Korea!) I'm screwed. Any
> comments are welcome. I just realised with the holidays that I have to fix
> this soon :)
I just
I am unclear as to how to feed mail that is spam and gets by the filters
back into sa so that it can learn them. can someone walk me how to do this,
especially if the mail to be marked as spam is on a windows box now and not
the linux box (I use doze for my mail client, and linux for serving...
> We just replaced our old qmail-scanner + spamd system with a fresh
install,
> and we had a concurrency incoming of about 150. The old single processor
> PIII 800 handled this just fine.
>
> The new dual PIII 1Ghz would supposedly work much better. With
> qmail-scanner 1.20 and spamd 2.60 it man
-Original Message-
From: Larry Gilson
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:30 PM
To: 'Tony Bunce'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Ideas
Attached is a custom rule file. It has been working rather well and I will
be increasing the score from 0.5 to 1.0. The cf file also has so
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Frederick M Avolio wrote:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-talk&m=106883816809749&w=2
>
> The error was:
>
> Nov 14 11:02:12 lh spamd[17078]: Use of uninitialized value in open at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/TextCat.pm line 63.
This may
If you have been in a cave, easynet is shutting down. They have on their web
page the following:
"
easynet.nl Spamlist - DISCONTINUED DEC 1 2003
easynet.nl Dynablock dial-up database - dynablock.easynet.nl - DISCONTINUED
DEC 1 2003
Suggestion for replacement: dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net
easynet.nl Blackh
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> with will be seen as hammy. If you use the additional rules on Chris'
> site at http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/Nigerian.txt
> that gets the score up to 4.6!
FYI -- this file seems to have lots of words in parens - I think whoever
wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Bongert writes:
>We just rolled out SpamAssassin 2.60 as a spam filtering option to our
>users (after using it on IT staff guinea pigs for about a month), and only
>have about 20 people using it so far out of a possible 800 or so. In theory,
>the
We just replaced our old qmail-scanner + spamd system with a fresh install,
and we had a concurrency incoming of about 150. The old single processor
PIII 800 handled this just fine.
The new dual PIII 1Ghz would supposedly work much better. With
qmail-scanner 1.20 and spamd 2.60 it managed to run
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: RE: Re[2]:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc
>
>
> On Monday, November 24, 2003 4:24 PM -0800 Log
My .razor/servers.discovery.lst has 66.151.150.11.
I know Razor is running with SA, but how can I find out if Razor is using their "distributed, collaborative, spam detection and filtering network"? I should see something in the debugged log file about connections to servers, correct?
t
We tag it as spam at 6.0 and delete it after 5 days. Since we get over
200MB of spam a day (for less than 1300 email accounts), keeping it
indefinitely is not an option. The user has 5 days to check the Spam
folder in their web email to catch any FPs. If they like we can bypass
the filtering sy
A custom rule, or a builtin rule?
built-in.
I looked back through one of the archives (the other seemed to be a
little broken), but didn't see any messages from you around Nov 14.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-talk&m=106883816809749&w=2
The error was:
Nov 14 11:02:12 lh spamd[170
At 01:43 PM 11/25/2003, Dan Tappin wrote:
When I run sa-learn I only see the '1 message learned' output even thought
I forwarded multiple messages to that mailbox.
Any ideas / comments?
sa-learn --mbox
unless you add the --mbox parameter, sa-learn expects a single rfc822
format message per file
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> One big problem you have is this
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
Oh yeah -- already re-learned as spam.
> with will be seen as hammy. If you use the additional rules on Chris'
> site at http://www.merchantso
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Thielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Evil rules, popcorn, etc too much?
>
>
> Chris Santerre said:
> > The FP rate for all of these is just about zero. I
> recommen
I was running a whitelist on our local domain for a long time but overcoming
whitelisted spam became too much of a chore. So I removed the whitelist
entry and replaced with a header check on Received to verify it came from
our internal machines, then assigned it -50. Then I slap a 5.1 on anything
Hello,
sa-learn stopped learning messages. Debugging shows that it can
successfully tie Bayes db, extracts tokens, etc, but never actually
writes data to the database.
I had a db corruption issue some time ago, so, this could very
well be remnants of that.
Anyway, I'm trying to run "sa-learn -
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:43:35PM +0200, Zak McGregor wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The InfoWorld article has just hit Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org/)
It took 'em long enough.
--
-
Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Technical Manager
SS
What makes you say that? Could you post whatever details lead you to that
conclusion?
-Original Message-
From: German Staltari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:36:55 -0500, JC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think I remembered! I think what I did was to run sa-l
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:11:10 -0500, Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 03:27 11/25/2003 -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> >An automata based regexp engine is one that can compile a set of
> >regular expressionns down into an automata, then run the automata. The
> >advantage this has
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:07:50 -0500, JC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What makes you say that? Could you post whatever details lead you to that
conclusion?
If I force an expire (sa-learn --force-expire) or force a sync (sa-learn
--rebuild), no errors are reported, so It happens when an opporunistic r
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ron Weales wrote:
> I know Razor is running with SA, but how can I find out if Razor is using
> their "distributed, collaborative, spam detection and filtering network"?
> I should see something in the debugged log file about connections to
> servers, correct?
spamassassin -
Chris' EVILRULES gets the score up by 3 on that. See
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm. Also,
Colin A. Bartlett had posted a spam sentences rule set that adds an
additional 2 points to that email. His original score I think was 10
for each sentence, but I decreased it
At 02:17 PM 11/25/2003, Douglas Kirkland wrote:
I am using the '-A' to tell which IP addresses to listen to.
-m max-children
-V virtual-config directory
-p port
ahh, I was confused by your abuse of the word "listen"...
-A doesn't change the behavior of calls to listen()..
Well it may not be that
On Monday, November 24, 2003 4:24 PM -0800 Logan Harbaugh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point of using the old version of SpamAssassin was to show how
> much the technology has changed in the last few years. That was
> stated in my original article but edited out of the final version.
> (I love
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 10:55, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 12:37 PM 11/25/2003, Douglas Kirkland wrote:
> >I am looking to have a spamd config file and been unable to find one. I
may
> >have missed it. Otherwise I will have to have a very long line to
configure
> >spamd the way I want it to ru
One big problem you have is this
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
That autolearned it as ham, so now all other emails that come through
with will be seen as hammy. If you use the additional rules on Chris'
site at http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gor
At 12:37 PM 11/25/2003, Douglas Kirkland wrote:
I am looking to have a spamd config file and been unable to find one. I may
have missed it. Otherwise I will have to have a very long line to configure
spamd the way I want it to run. The reason is because there is over 200 IP
addresses that i want
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher X. Candreva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Nigerian-type scores 0.00
>
>
>
> Wow -- here's a Nigerian type spam that scored 0.00 . I've
> just submit it to
> DCC
At 12:12 PM 11/25/2003, Nick Tong wrote:
I send out email news letters each week for my clients but I want to offer
them the ability to see if there emails will be blocked due to there email
containing a large amount of spam scoring text?
Does anyone out there know of a plug-in for spamassassin
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ron Weales wrote:
> However, I never saw anything about "read server list", "closest server
> is" or "connecting to"...
> So it appears that Razor isn't connecting to their servers.
It just so happened --- I'm working right now on why it seems razor stopped
working here. It
We just rolled out SpamAssassin 2.60 as a spam filtering option to our
users (after using it on IT staff guinea pigs for about a month), and only
have about 20 people using it so far out of a possible 800 or so. In theory,
the mail server (dual 1.13 PIIIs, 1Gb RAM, FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE) should be abl
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 10:22 am, Kris Deugau wrote:
--snip--
didn't read most of above
> Because it's been around for a while and has been proven to be decently
> stable as a production server platform maybe?
no because redhat changed thier policies and none of the big oems support any
of th
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:22:51PM -0500, Tony Bunce is rumored to have said:
>
> I have been seeing lots of spam like this getting through recently
>
> Anyone have any ideas how to reduce this type of spam from getting
> through?
I noticed that this guy's using our domain name as the argument t
Frederick M Avolio wrote:
> Perhaps this is *my* problem. November 14 I mentioned having problems
> upgrading to 2.60. One of the rules was giving an error.
A custom rule, or a builtin rule? I've been running 2.60 on my own 7.3
server for around two months; and I just upgraded the production ser
I am currently trying to implement bayes on my SA system. I was using spamcop before
and I started using a spamcop reporting
plug-in for my sa-learn reporting. I could configure the plug-in to redirect my spam,
headers and all to the learning account of my
choosing.
I have just realized that t
SA 2.55 on RH 6.2 running as spamd with Qmail.
Just installed Razor 2.36.
SA faq says to confirm that Razor is running by using debug mode and observing that razor is available and what version, etc,.
I see:
"Razor2 is available"
"Using results from Razor v2.36"
However, I n
I have been seeing lots of spam like this getting through
recently
Anyone have any ideas how to reduce this type of spam from
getting through?
Thanks,
Tony B, CCNA, Network+
Systems Administration
GO Concepts, Inc. / www.go-concepts.com
Are you on the GO yet?
What about those y
Logan Harbaugh wrote:
To all concerned, I apologize for the apparent maligning of SpamAssassin
in my recent article in InfoWorld. In my original article, I stated that
I used the 2.44 release of SpamAssassin for two reasons - because it was
the version shipping with the latest release of Red Hat
At 05:55 PM 11/25/2003 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why ?? I installed SA on RH 7.3 without any problem at all..
With (almost) just two commands :
perl -MCPAN -e shell
install /Mail:SpamAssassin/
My guess is that the problems arise from some package being missing that is
required, and the CPA
Brook Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote:
> > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3.
> *This* is your problem ^^
How so? (My emphasis added)
I have a number of RedHat 7.3 servers which have
If so is this possible on a windows platform?
Nick Tong
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Tong
Sent: 25
November 2003 17:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] SpamScore check
Dear community,
I sen
--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:12 PM + Nick Tong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear community,
>
>
>
> I send out email news letters each week for my clients but I want to
> offer them the ability to see if there emails will be blocked due to
> there email containing a large amount o
If you have access to a spamassassin binary, you can do the same thing
on any system (i.e. install SA on your system and run the message
through).
Another simple way to do it would be to simply send the mail to yourself
(assuming you have SA on a server somewhere filtering your emails) and
careful
At 03:27 11/25/2003 -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote:
I mentioned this about a year ago, but now that people are starting to
write rulesets with hundreds to thousands of new rules, I thought I'd
bring it up again.
How happy are people with the performance of SA, especially with all
of thee new rules? Th
At 11:49 AM 11/25/2003, Bret Miller wrote:
Anyone have a good rule for catching gappy text like the following
message. It seems like with all the nice rules we have to catch hidden
HTML tags, that writing a simple rules to catch a bunch of underscores or
dots shouldn't be so hard... but then, I
I am looking to have a spamd config file and been unable to find one. I may
have missed it. Otherwise I will have to have a very long line to configure
spamd the way I want it to run. The reason is because there is over 200 IP
addresses that i want to restrict spamd to listen to. These IP ad
We were running SA2.6 on Rh7.3 here but only after we updated Perl to 5.6.1
(or was it 5.8 - don't remember offhand). We had no major issues once Perl
was done (couple script changes here and there and changing local.cf around)
- we have since moved to SuSE 9 Pro since RH is dropping 7.3 and 8.0
s
The thing that struck me, and admittedly this is coming from a Windows
background, is the sheer amount of "stuff" you can do with an MTA like
Postfix (or, I suspect most *nix MTAs).
Little things like being able to export a list of valid users to avoid all
the dictionary spam, being able to RBL bl
Dear
community,
I
send out email news letters each week for my clients but I want to offer them
the ability to see if there emails will be blocked due to there email
containing a large amount of spam scoring text?
Does
anyone out there know of a plug-in for spamassassin or
any other
Same with me at 3 separate locations; one with Exch 5.5 and two with
Exch 2000. It works great!
In my setup, SA has little to do with Exch. It's a separate server which
MX points to and then the Linux box forwards all mail to Exch after
running SA. The users have Outlook Rules to move [SPAM] mes
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> How happy are people with the performance of SA, especially with all
> of thee new rules? The reason I ask is that I'm on-again, off-again
I think a faster engine is a great idea, no matter what. Spam is growing --
even if our servers are big enough N
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 08:37 am, you wrote:
> So, SA 2.60 will only run with RH Linux > 7.3? I suspect it really is a
> problem with the version of Perl I am running. But there is no dependency
> for a particular version of Perl listed. (I am running v5.6.1 built for
> i386-linux.)
ah no i wa
-Original Message-
From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 November, 2003 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum
>On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote:
>> Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60
At 11:06 AM 11/25/2003, McWhirter,Julia wrote:
I have looked through the tests on the spamassassin web site, but to no
avail.
1) that's not a complete email it's only a body with partial headers, thus
nobody will be able to test it against spamassassin.
2) these kind of obfuscating strings are ve
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
