Would any of you nice folks out there knowledgeable about rmail in emacs
have any ideas, hints, tips or pointers about modifying for the better
any of the lines of this program?...
;; sa-spam-removal.el
;;
;; Copyright (c) 2003 Trevis J. Rothwell tjr at gnu.org
;;
;; This program is free softwar
Hi Bob:
Bob Apthorpe wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:47:39 -0500 Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe the core development team will be too receptive to this,
based on what I remember from the the last time this was brought up on
SAdev. I'm counting on being corrected by some
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:47:39 -0500 Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Folks:
[...]
> I did not want to monkey around with the base system scoring if
> possible. I simply wanted to integrate another spam filter with its own
> scoring into SpamAssassin. As I have been playing with bogof
> The whitelist part is a misnomer. It's an automatic score adjuster
> (white/black-list if you want).
I realize this. Just figure that the name should be more informative.
Better yet, shouldn't it be somehow tied to the bayes DB? These
messages are correctly scoring "0% chance of spam" from B
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 09:33:23PM -0500, Mark London wrote:
> Hi - I see the rule USERNAME_IN_SUBJECT, but I've never seen that
> triggered at my site, and a test message sent to myself did not trigger
> it. We are using spamassassin with sendmail, mimedefang, cyrus, and
> redhat linux. Any i
Hi - I see the rule USERNAME_IN_SUBJECT, but I've never seen that
triggered at my site, and a test message sent to myself did not trigger
it. We are using spamassassin with sendmail, mimedefang, cyrus, and
redhat linux. Any idea why it's not working? Thanks. - Mark
Received: from alcserv1.p
Hi Folks:
The spam we've been getting recently has seemingly been targeted at
getting lower scores to bypass the checks. With the pattern matching
being subverted, unless Razor, Pyzor, DCC or one of the BLs (if you use
them) have the message/sender data within it, the only defense is the
Bayesi
Bryan Hoover wrote:
> I'm still looking at the differences between the code from which I
> pulled the above -- it's not matching in the exact same way. My
> original code -- that which I'm using on my account -- matches more
> flexibly, but there have been no false matches. Procamail seems to hav
Hi all, I removed the commas as per matts suggestion but the
whitelist_from line in my ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file still doesn't
seem to work
Heres the line in my user_prefs file:
whitelist_from root* Super-User
heres the mail header after SA:
>From root Thu Jan 1 15:39:58 2004
Received:
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 03:42:05PM -0800, Chris Petersen wrote:
> My question is why the auto *whitelist* is adding points to the
> message. Shouldn't it be subtracting them? Before the spam started,
The whitelist part is a misnomer. It's an automatic score adjuster
(white/black-list if you wan
I recently started receiving spam addressed from someone on one of the
mailing lists I'm on, and since at about that time, my own address
started "sending" spam, we determined that the web archive of the list
had been spidered. Anyway, now, whenever I get mail from him, SA has
tagged it as spam du
Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> I like it! Much more efficient than listing all of the addresses
> out.
It is pretty nifty -- I love stuff like that :). I only partially
tested what I pasted -- which I "extrapolated" from my implimented code
-- I had forgotten to test whether it matched only for addresse
Bryan Hoover wrote:
> HEADERTAG=From
> ADDRESSFILE=/usr/home/bhoover/listreply
Use $MAILDIR here?
ADDRESSFILE=$MAILDIR/listreply
> :0i
> HEADERTAGVAL=|$FORMAIL -zx$HEADERTAG | tr -d "\n" | tr -s " "
>
> * ? grep -i $HEADERTAGVAL $ADDRESSFILE
I like it! Much more efficient than listing all o
Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > It is better to look at the mailing list tags instead.
> > [...]
> > Here is a start at a common set of list tags
> > which I think would be more suitable for this task.
> >
> > :0fw:spamassassin.lock
> > * !^X-BeenThere:
> > * !^X-Mailing-List:
> >
Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> Martin Radford wrote:
> > In your scenario, it sounds very much like you're already running
> > procmail. In this case, the best method is to tell procmail not to
> > call spamc/spamassassin if mail is from one of those lists.
> >
> > For example, my own .procmailrc looks li
Martin Radford wrote:
> In your scenario, it sounds very much like you're already running
> procmail. In this case, the best method is to tell procmail not to
> call spamc/spamassassin if mail is from one of those lists.
>
> For example, my own .procmailrc looks like this:
>
> :0fw:spamassassin.
Robert Menschel wrote:
> I'll keep playing with those files. We'll figure it out sooner or later.
> Thanks for the help.
Another quick speculation. Be sure, if you havn't already, you've got
all your Perl modules up to date -- since you are running from an
alternate environment and all. I thinki
Hello Bryan,
Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 11:14:25 PM, you wrote:
BH> Bryan Hoover wrote:
>> > perl ./mass-check -c ./spamassassin -j 1 --loghits --mid --mbox ./corpus.ham/*
>> > >ham.log
>> > perl ./mass-check -c ./spamassassin -j 1 --loghits --mid --mbox ./corpus.spam/*
>> > >spam.log
>> >
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 20:23, Robert Menschel wrote:
> I'm hoping someone can help me with mass-check, or more specifically with
> hit-frequencies.
>
> I've installed Cygwin on my W/XP-H box. Within Cygwin I've installed SA,
> not to use for mail filtering (that happens on my servers), but
> specif
At Thu Jan 1 18:42:03 2004, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
>
> We subscribe to a number of lists and it seems a waste of resources to run
> them thru SA. Which would save the most resources, whitelisting them in SA
> or using a procmail recipe which only invoked SA if the mail was not from a
> list?
I run spamd with -D from time to time in order to run statistic
gathering tools on my /var/log/maillog. Debug currently runs at
two levels, all or none. It would be nice if one could selectively
turn on debugging at a modular level. For example, for me, it
would be rare that I would want to see
At 08:47 AM 1/1/2004, you wrote:
Hi! I've been using spamassassin at my ISP for a while and am very happy
with it. Now, I've had to change my ISP, and want to run spamassassin at
home with my e-mail client. I set everything up as I believe that it should
be, but it does not work. More to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have just written a new script in Perl to update bigevil.cf from Chris
Santerre's site, compare it against the version currently in use and
update if necessary, make a backup of the old script and send a
notification email.
The script has b
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Russell H. wrote:
> I'm running the latest release (2.61) on FreeBSD with the standard
> sendmail+procmail config using spamc/spamd and it seems that user_prefs
> are not working. I've tried setting up whitelists/blacklists and played
> with the threshold value but it only
Hi To all,
I'm new to the list and got spamassassin working on RH9.0
I'm hosting a few web site and their corresponding email. I would like
to teach Spam Assassin with the most spam as possible from users that
are complaining for a while.
What would be th
I'm testing a spam filter using RedHat Linux 9, avavis-new, and
Spamassassin. It seems to be working as I'm seeing mail flagged as
spam,
but I don't see any entries in my maillog from spamassassin, and
neither
does sa-stats.
Logging options will be controlled from amavsid.conf. Add the line:
Hi! I've been using spamassassin at my ISP for a while and am very happy
with it. Now, I've had to change my ISP, and want to run spamassassin at
home with my e-mail client. I set everything up as I believe that it should
be, but it does not work. More to the point the ".forward" command (I
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:46:28 +0100, Florian L. Klein wrote:
> Within the next few days I'll need a new patch against 2.60 (on
> Debian Sarge) anyway and I can submit it of course. ;-)
Do you (or anyone else here) know if anyone's tested the existing patch against SA
2.61?
The idea is too good
Hi,
I would love to have an extra option '--check-socket-user' or similar
and let spamd check(or solely use) the uid of the spamc process but
ignoring any false"-u someotheruser" settings.
I have heard from one of our sys-admins the following:
If $client is a socket that has been generated with
At Thu Jan 1 02:09:41 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Well, Bayes says it's 100% spam, which doesn't count towards autolearn
> decisions.As the debug output says, the original score (scoreset
> 3, with no learn or userconf rules applied), the message scores 0.1
> (HTML_MESSAGE). In scoreset 1
At Thu Jan 1 06:29:32 2004, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> I'm attaching a sample of something that on first inspection looks like a
> variant of the RND_UC_CHAR spam. The HTML part is different, but most
> interesting is all the Bayes poison after the tag in the HTML part.
> This seems like it shou
Bryan Hoover wrote:
> > perl ./mass-check -c ./spamassassin -j 1 --loghits --mid --mbox ./corpus.ham/*
> > >ham.log
> > perl ./mass-check -c ./spamassassin -j 1 --loghits --mid --mbox ./corpus.spam/*
> > >spam.log
> > perl ./hit-frequencies -x -c /home/Owner/sa-masses/spamassassin
>
> The answe
Dragoncrest wrote:
>
> >Though his friends and family getting scored sounds very possibly like
> >some Bayes corruption going on because of the false negative
> >autolearn(ing) -- not a good thing.
> >Granted though, as the scoring from friends and family was not posted,
> >Bayes may not have had
33 matches
Mail list logo
