You may want to consider qmail-scanner for this. It uses SA as a
scanner and will tag ALL email in the queue. See:
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/
---
Ed Henderson
Certainty Tech
http://www.certainty.net/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
>
> I'm using spamd in daemon mode with vpopmail: daemon spamd -d -v -u
> vpopmail -F 0
> What's the exact sintax forcing to read one configuration and not in the
> vpopmail users own maildir ?
> I must rise score from 5 to 7 and I don't know how.
>
> TYA.
>
Stop using the per user vpopmail conf
Did you restart spamd after modifying the config files?
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hess,
> Mtodd, /mth
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: satalk
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] HTML changed to plain text
>
>
> Sorry, I sho
Read "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf"
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hess,
> Mtodd, /mth
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: satalk
> Subject: [SAtalk] HTML changed to plain text
>
>
> I've just installed SA with Exim.
> Hey all--
>
> I'm using SA to filter out spam and it works great. The only problem I
> have, is that I cannot filter mail that goes through an alias. For
> example, let's say I have an account "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and I make an alias
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (aliased to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]). My "f
What mail server software are you planning to use on the Linux server?
sendmail, qmail, etc..? Once you decide then that will determine how to
implement SA in the manner that you want.
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hess,
>
> >
> > This is something that Postini offers. It allows the customer to select
> > different categories and could be a great way for business users to make
> > sure less legit business email doesn't get tagged as Spam while allowing
> > residential/personal email to block $$ type emails since th
>
> Hmm, here's a thought. Each SA rule could (optionally) be assigned a
> "category" (porn, UCE, MLM, fraud, etc.). SA could then tally up a
> "category score" as well as a basic spam score, and the subject tag could
> be selected using the category that scores highest.
>
> Some rules, like bei
uot;]
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 10:05:20AM -0400, CertaintyTech - Ed
> Henderson wrote:
> | > > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a few emails that were
> | > > | legitimately sent BCC.
> | > >
> | > > Was this an outhouse bug? (
BTW, I just submitted this one to bugzilla as bug
#519 just in case anyone is planning to look
at this.
--->Ed
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
CertaintyTech - Ed HendersonSent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 9:36
A
> > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a
few emails that were> > | legitimately sent BCC.> >>
> Was this an outhouse bug? ( 'To:
' -- not a> > valid header per
RFC (2)822)> >> > I haven't checked the rule itself,
BTW.>> Yes. It was in the form 'To:
'.>I have registered this o
> I'm at least partly responsible for that one, since I
forwarded (but did> not invent) the procmail recipe on which it is
based. Can you send along> the header of a legitimate juno
message?>>Here you go:Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Delivered-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Received: (qmail 28710
> | Here is what I found:
> |
> | DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06: This rule misfired on an email that one of my
> | customers sent. Her date was set using Pacific Time while
> being in Eastern
> | time so her clock was set 3 hours ahead to correct the date. From my
> | experience with novice users and
Hello all,
I have been off the list for awhile but have been using SA. With the recent
upgrade to 2.31 I have discovered a couple of rules that don't always work:
DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06
FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS
FORGED_JUNO_RCVD
Has there been any discussion on these? (Geocrawler is so difficult to
s
Title: Message
Gotta
give us more info. What mail system are you using? There are a
myriad of ways to integrate SA. Most use procmail or maildrop for final
delivery and this is where SA gets called.
---
Ed.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
If you're using spamd then add the "-x" switch.
--
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin
> Hemenway
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Stopping user_pref creation?
>
>
>
> Good day.
>
> It looks like qfilter is inbetween qmail-smtpd and qmail-queue. By that
> time, its too late, qmail-smtpd has already accepted the message,
> and there
> is no way to return an error to the mailer that sent the spam (unless by
> some amazing chance, the reply-to, and From addresses are valid)
Take a look at the new vpopmail integration in SA 2.20 first before
resorting to SQL. See the README.spamd-vpopmail in the spamd dir of the
2.20 distribution for details. It gives support for virtual vpopmail users.
I wrote the patch and use it daily and works great.
--
Ed.
>
> Chris,
>
> ta
>
>
> You could add an entry to the main procmailrc that checks for the
> existence
> of a certain file called "nospamcheck" (or something like that). IF the
> file exists in the users dir then don't run spamc otherwise run
> spamc. Then
> put "nospamcheck" in each of the user's dir that do not
You could add an entry to the main procmailrc that checks for the existence
of a certain file called "nospamcheck" (or something like that). IF the
file exists in the users dir then don't run spamc otherwise run spamc. Then
put "nospamcheck" in each of the user's dir that do not want SA. I do th
This question is not SA specific but just a general email sysadmin type
question: What is an effective way to monitor my own dialup customers to
see if any are abusing their email privilege by sending out spam? I am
using qmail. Somehow monitor the volume that each local IP is sending? Just
cur
>
> These should goto spamassassin-sightings, not spamassassin-talk (unless
> you think there's a discussion in store for this spam.)
>
What exactly happens to the emails that are sent to spamassassin-sightings?
I have sent alot of them but just wonder if anything is done with them. Are
they use
"man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf" is your friend. Look for "report_header"
option.
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken
> Causey
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:54 PM
> To: SA Talk
> Subject: [SAtalk] Appending original mes
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > :0 fw
> > > > |spamassassin -d
> > > >
> > > >
>
> I believe the new version of SA allows userprefs in vpopmail directories..
> although I have not had the time to play with it. I dont see how it could
> be faster to parse a userpref file than do a database query
> anyhow.. I think
> i'll stick with my current setup.
>
> Dallas
>
I'm the on
> > It has also got an issue with not bouncing spam to non existing
> addresses
> > there needs to be a check as to what
> VHOME=`/var/vpopmail/pop/bin/vuserinfo
> > -d $EXT@$HOST` actually comes to... when it says "no such user" then it
> > ought to bounce rather than trying to put it in a maild
>
> Anyone else here trying to use SpamAssassin to filter
> ALL incoming mail for many users in Vpopmail on Qmail?
>
> Is Qmail-Scanner the way to go? http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/
> ifspamh? http://www.gbnet.net/~jrg/qmail/ifspamh
>
> Any tips/URLs/FAQs appreciated.
> I'm pret
> The two obvious approaches seem to have problems:
>
> |spamassassin -d |mail $MAIL -- spamassassin will simply reprocess the
> message, and, in any case, the original headers won't show up properly
>
> |spamassassin -d >>$MAIL -- this could run afoul of sendmail delivering
> mail
>
> So... any s
Create custom rule like:
header OLDADDRESS Delivered-To =~ /brians-old-address\@enchanter\.net/i
describe OLDADDRESS This is an old address
score OLDADDRESS 100.0
Now any message with Delivered-To: header will get a score of 100 and
therefore get tagged as Spam.
---
Ed.
>
> I have some old ema
>
> I wanted something free (GPL or similar), and preferably not written
> in Java (as is OpenAntiVirus, the only package mentioned on freshmeat
> that does have its on ruleset).
>
> SPAM: email sent by an infected human.
> Virus: email sent by the infected combination human/computer.
> Worm: emai
7 is the most common at my site.
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric
> S. Johansson
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: Klaus Heinz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] false positive
>
>
> At 02:56 PM 4/21
> I didn't see any way mentioned to tell qmail-scanner not to scan
> outgoing mail. If
> you follow the advice of setting your SA preferences to not
> modify the body and add a
> rule that gives a big negative score for some header that you can
> be sure indicates
> that the mail is being sent fro
>
> Finally! It's here! I just rolled out the .tar.gz and .zip files to the
> spamassassin.org website, so it should either be updated now, or will
> auto-update itself soon to reflect that. Matt Seargeant, I'd be
> obliged if you
> could update CPAN with 2.20. The CVS tag for this release is
> Let's say I've got an e-mail that is a false-positive and has an
> attachment and/or is in HTML format. Because SpamAssassin inserts
> the detailed results into the body of the message, it won't be
> displayed by (lets say) Eudora as an HTML message. Everyone here uses
> POP clients, so the mes
cmail.)
-Original Message- From: CertaintyTech
- Ed Henderson Sent: Wed 4/17/2002 4:50 PM To: Nick
Fisher; Christopher Davis; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Porn mail deleting for
school
> By policy we used to strip ALL attachments. That could
> By policy we used to strip ALL attachments. That could work out
> the problems
> above but only if it was done before spamd gets the mail.
>
> Nick
This where something like MIMEdefang could help you.
---
Ed.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing l
No you can't. Q-S will only run spamc and doesn't block or quarantine any
Spam messages. It has to be done further down the delivery pipe using
maildrop or procmail.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Davis
> Sent: Wedne
>
>
> You guys are great. I love initiating good conversation. You've brought
> some very points to the table, includiung legal issues. Anyway -- my
> problem still remains. Any ideas how to set up maildrop rules to do this?
> Thanks for the tip Ed.
> BTW -- Thanks Rich Wellner, you're a cool
>
> One of the options we offer at Star/ML is to send all spam to an
> admin instead
> of the recipient. That might be a useful option for you. I'm not sure how
> you'd do it with your setup, but I'm sure someone else can offer
> the right
> recipe.
>
> - --
> Matt.
This can easily be done thru p
> If you manually add a line like
> From Mon Apr 15 13:49:45 CDT 2002
> right here above the Received: line, the message will no longer be
> "embedded" in the previous one. That 'From ' line (but don't indent
> it) is the message separator in the mbox format.
>
If you run spamd with "-F 1" o
> Spamassassin is correctly identifying emails as spam but seems to
> corrupting
> the mailbox when writing the email back to it.
>
> I am using the daemon and spamc via procmail.
>
Post your procmail recipe. Problem probably lies there.
___
Spamas
> > It is. It's just only in there as source, not a binary.
> >
> any takers as to why it's only there as source?
> --
> Duncan Findlay
>
I believe its because of the qmail licensing. You can distribute source
freely but not precompiled binaries.
--
Ed.
__
Title: User_prefs location
Per
user preferences go in ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs. Site wide preferences
are typically stored in /etc/mail/spamassass/local.cf
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy
GramataSent: Thursday, April
> Qmail + qmailqueue patch + tls patch
> qmail-scanner + sophie/sophos
> spamd/spamc
>
I ditto this. This system is very similar to mine and it just plain works!
Very little day to day maintenence.
---
Ed.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL
> hi,
>
> I've been using spamassassin for a few weeks and
> am pretty happy with it. My setup is with
> spamc/spamd. Some users however would prefer to be
> able to see the HTML (in case) for readability. Is
> there any option for this?
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Ivan Ivanyi
>
You will find your a
Sorry. I can't reproduce it. Didn't mean to raise a false alarm.
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:39 PM
> To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Cc: Shane Hickey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Shane Hickey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] auto-whitelist problem
>
>
> Hmm... I changed the way I start spamd to "spamd -d -c -a -F1 -u spamc"
> a
I
currently use 5, 7, and 10. I posed this same question sometime ago
and this was the consensus.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
RenatoSent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:16 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [SAtalk] Help
Try adding the -c option to spamd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shane
> Hickey
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] auto-whitelist problem
>
>
> Howdy all, I'm sure I'm doing some
Here is from a recent post from Dallas:
first you have to apply the seekable patch to vpopmail
(http://www.thesafebox.com)
after you have the seekable patch applied, you can filter through maildrop
by changing your domain/.qmail-default file to
| maildrop mailfilter
the mailfilter file must be o
Take a look at "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf" this should give you
configuration help.
--
Ed.
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to add a couple rules to SpamAssassin:
>
> - Detect if the email is in some funky character set
> - Detect if the email is not in english
> - Detect if the subject ends in six
> > If I use sitewide AWL (as defined in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf)
> but
> > still allow individual users to create their own user_prefs where they
> could
> > create whitelist_from entries would this skew the sitewide AWL db for
> other
> > users?
>
> Bart Schaefer mentioned this, and I
Want to pose this question to the more knowlegeable:
If I use sitewide AWL (as defined in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf) but
still allow individual users to create their own user_prefs where they could
create whitelist_from entries would this skew the sitewide AWL db for other
users? Here is
I am working on a vpopmail patch to SA. My first go at it on Friday looks
good. When it is ready I will release it to the list in a few days.
Basically you pass the email address using "spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (like
the SQL lookup feature) and spamd will look up userinfo from vpopmail.
Norma
So what you are saying is that they can have custom settings thru their
personal .mailfilter file but not thru their own user_prefs dir thru SA.
Correct?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Dallas Engelken
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 200
>
>
> My % = 6.8 megs. That just seems really high while sitting there doing
> nothing but waiting.
>
>
>
I see that you are using AWL. How large is your db? This may be what is
using alot of your RAM. My AWL db is about 16MB.
---
Ed.
___
Spamass
Percentage is relative but on my box spamd is currently using 8.8MB of RAM.
Got this from top.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of AHA
> Lists
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Spamd and
Remember that spamc will only scan messages that are 250KB or smaller.
Could it be that some larger messages are the ones that you saw without any
SA headers?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
> Doty
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20
>
> On Wednesday 20 March 2002 11:46 am, Lewis Bergman wrote:
> > I have installed SpamAssassin and it is working as it should
> be. The only
> > problem I seem to have is this error is reported when it runs:
> > razor check skipped: No such file or directory undefined Razor::Client
>
> If you are
gt; University of California, Berkeley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
> > I am an ISP using SA for my customers. I have set the default
> SA threshold
> > to 7. I have also setup a bi-weekly report notifying my
> customers o
I am an ISP using SA for my customers. I have set the default SA threshold
to 7. I have also setup a bi-weekly report notifying my customers of how
many Spam messages they have accumulated. No Spam messages are deleted
unless they are older than 30 days. They can then go to our Webmail service
Kerry,
Could you try adding the tests that Matthew recently posted specifically for
lists? Would be interesting to see how or if these change your results.
Here they are:
Here's some rules that I have for lists:
# Only look for 7 bit chars between square brackets, because a lot
# of spam with 8
t; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: List emails
>
>
> CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
> > I am very pleased with SA and the job it is doing. Good job to all!
> >
> > But...In my situation if SA makes a false positive it is often on
> > m
I am very pleased with SA and the job it is doing. Good job to all!
But...In my situation if SA makes a false positive it is often on mailing
list type emails. Perhaps a user has suscribed to a joke of the day or some
hobby list, etc... Has anyone developed any custom rules what would
give -ve
You may want to look at the "spamc -c" option which will return error codes
that correspond to the number of hits, etc.. Based on what spamc -c reports
you could exit with a particular status code that would cause the SMTP
session to fail and not continue. I personally use qmail and an exit code
arch 17, 2002 5:03 AM
> To: 'David G. Andersen'
> Cc: 'CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Whitelist for Charlie Root
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hrm...
>
> I'm doin
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:43 PM
> To: 'CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Whitelist for Charlie Root
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ugh...its still isn't working. I paste
s Charlie Root
score CHARLIE_ROOT -100.0
Now it will get thru.
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Loiterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:03 PM
> To: 'CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Add a whitelist_from entry in your /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf or
perhaps a custom rule that looks for a unique Subject and scores the message
with a -100. See man page Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf for details.
==
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
> My setup is using procmail; question for you guys: are the incoming
> mails getting clobbered arriving near each other in time? I have a
> number of cron jobs on our servers that all occur simultaneously that
> launches a bunch of mail messages, some of which arrive intact, some of
> which don't
>
> Hate to sound like the boy who cried wolf, but *that* definitely sounds
> like a locking problem. Is procmail delivering to an mbox file? If so,
> does the delivery recipe lock the file?
>
> Read "man procmailrc" for procmail's locking syntax. Like everything
> procmail, it's cryptic and no
> Were these line breaks there or did you add them when
sending the> message?>> -jim>
Here are the headers again in HTML so that
you don't get the line breaks. Also, all headers and first part of body
are included:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Return-Path:
> Might conceivably be a locking problem. How are you delivering
> messages, and to what sort of message store (mbox, maildir, etc.)?
>
> Greg
> --
I am using qmail+vpopmail+maildrop to Maildirs. Like I said it does not
happen often but I have seen it occasionally. Here are some of the
I am using SA 2.11 and sometimes see messages that are messed up - all of
the headers appear in the body of the message and the From: and To: headers
are empty. This has happened very infrequently but I wonder if anyone else
is seeing this on occasion? Or is this a known problem with 2.11? It s
This is not SA specific but I am using maildrop as a filter to make delivery
decisions for my email, ie. Spam or not Spam. I am trying to come up with
recipe for extracting the email address from the "From:" header. Of course
the From: header can take many different forms:
From: [EMAIL PROTECT
How do you get it to bind only to 127.0.0.1? I don't see an option in
syslogd or syslog.conf for that.
>
> Personally, I don't care if syslogd allows "network" logging through UDP,
> because I:
>
> 1. Only bind to 127.0.0.1
> 2. Firewall the syslog port on the local machine for TCP and UDP
> 3.
> > Somebody else mentioned another perl program that looked like it was
> > perhaps using the /dev/log syslog interface - you might
> investigate that.
> > If you don't need remote logging enabled, it's best to disable it.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie Watts
>
The question that I have is "why does Spa
>
> There's an absurdly simple DoS attack against remotely-logging syslog.
>
> You just log like crazy.
>
> Fill up the attackee's disks.
>
> Somebody else mentioned another perl program that looked like it was
> perhaps using the /dev/log syslog interface - you might investigate that.
> If you do
> It works for me. I think I'd be looking at syslog. Perhaps your Perl
> syslog interface?
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
>
> use strict;
> use Sys::Syslog qw(:DEFAULT setlogsock);
>
> my $log_facility = 'mail';
> openlog('test_logger','foo,bar',$log_facility);
> syslog('info',"Test log entry");
>
> --
>
I have been unable to get spamd to log any messages to syslog "mail"
facility. I have even switched it to "local0" and still no luck. The odd
thing is that spamd does send all syslog messages to the console. Here is
the line that I used for syslog.conf:
local0.info /var/log/spamd.log
spa
Use the "-F 0" switch for spamd/spamassassin
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Rodent of Unusual Size
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] rewrite_mail changing 'Return-Path: '
Downgrade to Razor 1.19 and it will work. There has been several
discussions about this on the list the last few days.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTE
Maybe spamc is returning some odd status code that maildrop misinterprets as
a failure. Again it seems to point to spamc/spamd
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brook
> Humphrey
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Sp
You can up the debug level to VERBOSE=9. This may tell you more. I'm
guessing that spamc is failing with some error and therefore maildrop defers
delivery. Enclose the xfilter line with an exception:
exception {
xfilter "spamc -f"
}
to "./Maildir"
This will allow maildrop to go ahead
> > anyone else seeing false-positives more often with 2.11?
>
> Yes, I have had to roll back to 2.01.
>
> Geoff Gibbs
I have not seen more false positives but have seen a significant improvement
with false negatives. From my experience it is an improvement over 2.01
---
Ed.
___
The whitelist_from entries for a site would normally be in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
--
Ed.
> We've been attempting to setup a global whitelist for our SpamAssassin
> installation in our office. We've tried
> /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf and /etc/spammassassin.cf with
> no luck?
> In your personal .spamassassin.prefs, place something like this:
> Business User: Yes
> Pornographer: Yes
> Anti-Hotmail: Yes
> ...
> etc
>
> and have these kinds of group modifications tone down the scores
> of specific
> types of tests (in this case, anything mentioning money or having
> $ in
> show-stopper bugfixes. Please get the latest stuff from CVS (or wait
> till after ~1am PST and get the 2.1 tarball from the website) and try it
> out over the next few days. I've re-instated the "-a" flag in the spamd
> startup scripts, but make sure you're using it, and let me know how it's
>
> I think the Genetic Algorithm (GA) assigns all the scores now.
> GA's are very
> powerful optimization tools, and if the GA lowered those scores, it likely
> raised (compensated) other scores that were more common spam signatures.
>
> The GA is only as good as the population of data it is run on
I have been seeing alot more Spam get thru (false negatives) in v2.01 than
with v1.5. I have been comparing the scores of 1.5 with 2.01 to see why.
Here is an interesting discovery: there are several scores in the
50_scores.cf file that are 0.01 in value:
50_scores.cf:score A_HREF_TO_UNSUB
]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:56 AM
> To: Craig Hughes; satalk
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] USER_IN_WHITELIST problem
>
>
> Here are my whitelist_from entries in my /etc/mail/spamassassi
*@diamondwebdesigns.com
whitelist_from *@elijahlist.com
whitelist_from *.echampions2000.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:42 AM
> To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] US
For some reason this message gets tagged by the USER_IN_WHITELIST test. I
do not have the From or To in my whitelist. I do not use autowhitelist and
have no whitelist_from defined for any yahoo.com addresses. I am using the
stable v2.01. Any ideas? This is the second message today that was ta
I've noticed an additional header has been added to my emails since
upgrading to SA 2.01. There is an additional pseudo-header like:
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 31 17:47:22 2002
added usually before the Delivered-To: header. I have set the spamd option
"-F 0" but this has no affect. Any i
Get rid of the "-a" switch in spamd.
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
> O'Hanlon
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] sitewide auto_whitelist db
>
>
> On Fri, Feb
> Having said that, I think apart from the issues with AWL, it's not *too*
> bad.
>
> C
>
Here, Here!! :-)
Ed.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
> Just to reassure people -- I firmly believe that autowhitelisting can do a
> very good job of reducing false positives from frequent non-spammer
> correspondents. There's just a flaw in the current algorithm which wasn't
> thought through terribly hard. Once I update the algorithm and re-relea
>
> This looks (case-insensitively) for the word "penis" or the word
> "enlarge" followed by any character (including newline) 0 to 50 times
> and it looks for that whole thing twice (or more).
>
> -D
>
> --
>
> In the way of righteousness there is life;
> along that path is immortality.
>
>
> In 2.01, the tests are as follows:
> 20_body_tests.cf:
> body VIAGRA/VIAGRA/
> * should probably be case insensitive
>
> change to:
> body VIAGRA/VIAGRA/i
>
> as far as I can tell, there is no rule simple looking for the
> word penis
> (a
So far I have seen the following with v2.01 as compared to v1.5:
1. 2.01 appears to be better at reducing false positives that v1.5 - this
is good!
2. 2.01 appears to be worse with false negatives. There is alot more Spam
getting thru. I don't have the ability to run the false negatives thru 1
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
