st majority of spam looks like spam! The few with a lower
score did look less like spam, so I suspect it is working.
Geoff Gibbs
UK-Human Genome Mapping Project-Resource Centre,
Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SB, UK
Tel: +44 1223 494530 Fax: +44 1223 494512 E-mail: [EMAI
> Bayes FYI: 2.60 has a new Bayes backend and database format.
The very helpful information about the changes to the Bayes
database format, which you included in your announcement, does not
seem to appear in the documentation.
Would it be worth adding it to the README or INSTALL files?
Ge
Is it expected that 2.60 will produce the same level of score as 2.55?
I.e. if I have set a threshold of a score of 5.0, will I get the
same hit rate?
Geoff Gibbs
UK-Human Genome Mapping Project-Resource Centre,
Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SB, UK
Tel: +44 1223 494530 Fax: +44 1223 494512 E-mail
> > > I notice that the spam test message is some new standard GTUBE
> > > and includes a 'Precedence: junk' header.
[]
> That's exactly why I added it -- to keep (my) autoresponders from answering
> on that test message when I send it myself.
[]
> > If your spam filtering setup is bamboozled by a
s not to have this header and thus this is not a good test
of how my system handles bouncing (or not) when the spam is detected.
Mind you, I can just delete the line ;-) Is there a reason for
its presence?
Geoff Gibbs
UK-Human Genome Mapping Project-Resource Centre,
Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SB, UK
> I've already upgrades from SA 2.31 to 2.40. I'm now going to 2.42 and
> figured I'd ask a simple question. What is the easiest method of upgrading?
I like to be able to specify where stuff goes, so use the .tar
For historic reasons I put SA in /usr/localbin (yes, just the 2 slashes)
and my sou
Julian Field writes:
> Run the command
> ./spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt
> and I get this at the end of the output
>
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
> SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
> SPAM: s
Jesse Sheidlower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the "known locations" discussed in the customizing section are
> all /usr/share or /etc/mail things that I don't have access to,
> because I've installed locally, and nothing else in the customizing
> section seems to cover where to put the rules
Vaclav Barta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked about religious spam
including :
> - chapter & verse
> - the bible
The Bible is one of the (if not THE) major sources of quotes in the English
language and while several of the lines you give would not occur in
everyday usage, 'chapter and verse' is very
> I want to use Spamassassin on our Postfix bastion mail host to filter
> all mail before it's relayed to our MAILSweeper (which then forwards to
> Exchange).
I use the content filtering facility in Postfix.
I get Postfix to call procmail as the content filter and then use
procmail to call sp
> Per. 5.6.1 (and maybe 5.6.0) can do a zero-width negative look-behind
assertion.
> Just add
>
> (?
> right before "sex", and it won't match "essex" anymore.
(?https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Matt Sergeant replied:
> >I believe that the current version of PORN_4 (2.11) is triggered by :-
> >
> >http://www.essex.ac.uk/
> Good. That means SpamAssassin is working ;-)
I am not sure that the burgers of that fine county would see it quite
like that ;-) I would have thought that while it i
> uri PORN_4
/^https?:\/\/[\w\.]*(?:xxx|sex|anal|slut|pussy|cum|nympho|suck|porn|hardcore|tab
oo|whore|voyeur|lesbian|gurlpages|naughty|lolita|teen|schoolgirl|kooloffer|eroti
c|lust|panty|panties)\w*\./
I believe that the current version of PORN_4 (2.11) is triggered by :-
http://www.essex.ac.
Ed Henderson asks:
> There is a Unix::Syslog module that supposedly is more secure according to
> the docs. But I don't have a clue as to how to use it instead of
> Sys::Syslog. Any suggestions?
Yes, I asked my Perl module/Solaris expert about Sys:: and Unix::
He told me that he thought that S
Ed Henderson wrote:
> 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.
You seem to have got further than me. I have tested spamd 2.01 and 2.11
under Solaris 7 and 9 and get :-
# spamd
Your vendor has not def
As a new comer to Spamassassin, I have to say that while I like the
software, I am not too keen on the installation process.
I like to keep the OS as standard and clean as possible and keep
additional software in well defined areas that suit me. I am not
keen on software that gropes around the sy
David G. Andersen wrote:
> > body GENETICS_DATA /([ACGT]{3,}[CGT][ACGT]?\s*){3,}/
> > describe GENETICS_DATA A, C, T, G, who do we appreciate?
> > scoreGENETICS_DATA -5
> Ahh, heck. Here's a better one for all of the geneticists
> on the list (one of them
> Meanwhile, try the following diff:
>
> Index: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/EvalTests.pm
> ===
> RCS file:
> /cvsroot/spamassassin/spamassassin/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/EvalTests.pm,v
> retrieving revision 1.109
> diff -r1.109 EvalTests.pm
>
> I think that this is
> more closely related to the false positive, I spotted, from a base-64
> attachment which also triggered the whole line of shouting.
Thinking about this a bit more, shouldn't the whole line of shouting test
test for some spaces between the words? This would avoid blocks of
Ed Henderson wrote:
> > > anyone else seeing false-positives more often with 2.11?
> >
> > Yes, I have had to roll back to 2.01.
> 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
Previously
Matt Sergeant replied:
> > I seem to be geting more false positives with 2.11 than 2.01.
> > The latest was triggered by someone sending the output from
> > a gene comparison program. The body contains gene sequences
> > which get reported as whole lines of shouting
>
> There's not really a whol
Matt Sergeant replied:
> > The latest rules seem to pick up an
> > empty subject as 'Subject is all capitals'.
>
> I think this is fixed in CVS. The current SUBJ_ALL_CAPS rule is:
>
> header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~
> /^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/
> describe SUBJ_ALL_CAPS
-mail with a base-64
attachment should not count as spam with no other trigger.
I also had one e-mail that triggered the ascii form and whole line
of shouting, where I cannot see a whole line of shouting and I have
not yet had time to work out what triggered the form, but it is
not obvious to the begi
> anyone else seeing false-positives more often with 2.11?
Yes, I have had to roll back to 2.01.
Geoff Gibbs
UK-Human Genome Mapping Project-Resource Centre,
Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SB, UK
Tel: +44 1223 494530 Fax: +44 1223 494512 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
I seem to be geting more false positives with 2.11 than 2.01.
The latest was triggered by someone sending the output from
a gene comparison program. The body contains gene sequences
which get reported as whole lines of shouting, plus this one had
an empty subject. The latest rules seem to pick up
:
SPAM: End of SpamAssassin results -
The whole line of yelling is in fact part of the body of the
base-64 encoding. It seems somewhat harsh to block a message
purely on the basis that it contains an attachment.
Am I being unreasonable ;-)
Geoff Gibbs
UK
26 matches
Mail list logo
