the stuff we have plugged into it. So I get the joy of
tearing my hair out trying to upgrade SA now that the dude who was doing it
before has become not-so-dearly-departed. Someone send me some magic dust
and a chicken...
--JR
---
Th
into logrotate and I have a zillion gigabyte logfile. :-P
Hey cool! he did not ask how to get spamassassin to delete the email. :-)
Yeah, right, then I'd get nothing but phone calls whining that SA ate their
email when really what happened is the dorks got over quota and a
ail, then you don't need
the first stanza.
Cheers,
--
Bob McClure, Jr. Bobcat Open Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bobcatos.com
It's easier to debate the Bible than obey it.
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by
d been told the last dude had made SA run "all that extra stuff", but
from the looks of it Razor, DCC, and Pyzor are all borked. What flaming
hoops do I need to jump through to un-bork them?
TIA and all that jazz.
--JR
---
s ham?
Finally, if I am writing my own custom rules, how do I determine what score
to give them? I see mentions of "running against the corpus" like the one
above, but how do you DO that, and once you do what exactly is it TELLING
Hello,
I have checked various pods and archives as well as the distributed
filters but can't determine if this is possible.
I am running SpamAssassin on Unix Solaris 9. I have been using procmail
and perl for years and until I installed SA I had rudimentary spam
detection with procmail's weighte
you will also need something like qmail-scanner, and need to patch and
recompile qmail to support calling another queue...
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/
http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/857/
http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-03/potm_01.html
wfg
john writes:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003
what do you see in /var/spool/qmailscanner/qmail-queue.log
Jennifer Fountain writes:
in the articles I am reading, you should see this in your
/var/log/maillog:
Jun 8 05:08:00 myhost spamd[11636]: info: setuid to qmailq succeeded
Jun 8 05:08:00 myhost spamd[11636]: checking message
<[EMAIL PRO
dway Suite 503
New York, NY 10012
Phone:212-941-5300 xt 36
Fax: 212-941-5563
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
william f guyton jr
senior network engineer
informs
334.277.0372x133
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
+, william f guyton jr wrote:
>Is their a configuration that allows SA to use unique local.cf for
>each domain passing thru a SA gateway?
This is really a function of the tool that calls SA, and not SA itself. So
you'd have to specify which tool you're using for that.
As an o
Is their a configuration that allows SA to use unique local.cf for
each domain passing thru a SA gateway?
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 18:25, william f guyton jr wrote:
A good point, I have attached the two image spams I have been testing
the gateway with.
> At 05:46 PM 7/23/2003 -0500, william f guyton jr wrote:
>
> > I am trying to up the score site wide using the local.cf file,
ntry codes will not be marked
# as being possibly spam in a foreign language.
ok_languages all
# Mail using locales used in these country codes will not be marked
# as being possibly spam in a foreign language.
ok_locales en
--
william f guyton jr
senior network engine
Much thanks.
Rick Macdougall writes:
Hi,
The main home page is http://www.interazioni.it/qmail/#qmail-smtpd
And Bill has a modified patch to work with his large qmail patch at
http://www.shupp.org/
Regards,
Rick
william f guyton jr wrote:
Where might one fine this "chkusr&q
Where might one fine this "chkusr" patch for vpopmail?
Rick Macdougall writes:
Hi,
Not sure what you mean by a problem. You can see some of our stats at the
following locations (Just added the chkusr patch - thanks tonix! - to
qmail this morning for vpopmail so that explains the drop in spa
The attached message got white listed but the listed from address is not
in the global config file and we do not allow user configs.
Thanks.
--
*
John McCoy, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Central Systems Administrator
Central Systems, Mills College
Oakland, CA 94613
Thanks for all the good info guys, will investigate the feasability on
my end.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 8:45 AM
To: Stewart, John; Ron Poserina Jr.;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] OT: Exchange / Outlook Rule
Can anyone tell me if there is a way to deploy an Outlook rule created
to Outlook clients without manually having to create it for each user?
I need to push out a rule for a SpamAssassin deployment that looks for
a spam tag in the header, then moves the spam tagged email into a
"spam" folder in t
with this local.cf file:
rewrite_subject 1
subject_tag ***SPAM***
report_header 1
defang_mime 0
SA is not rewriting the subject line of the message. :(
spamd is running with the following switches:
/usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a
--
william f guyton jr
senior network engineer
informs
this is what I have got:
-rw-r--r--1 root root 291 Oct 15 14:20 local.cf
[root@projects spamassassin]# pwd
/etc/mail/spamassassin
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 14:55, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:46:38PM -0500, william f guyton jr wrote:
> > I mu
):. Processed in
0.129528 secs); 15 Oct 2002 19:26:41 -
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=0
I must have a switch set wrong, but I cant seem to find it.
thanks
--
william f guyton jr
senior network engineer
informs
334.277.0372x133
---
This
Behalf Of matt
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:49 PM
To: John McCoy, Jr.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SPAM message tricked SA???
Is it just me, or did you forget to include the message that tricked SA?
I seem to have gotten a set of full headers, but no message.
My suggestion
perly. Hmmm I guess * ^X-Spam-Level:
\*\*\*\*\** would work for this in procmail, any other/better ideas.
Thanks all.
John McCoy, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Central Systems Administrator
Mills College Oakland, CA
Voice: 510-430
D]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mx.thehostmasters.com/pipermail/newsletter/>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:03:47 -0400
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
John McCoy, Jr [EMAIL
:33:03 koko.mills.edu spamd[24092]: identified spam (6.0/5.0)
for qmailq:72 in 5.0 seconds, 39909 bytes.\n
Thanks all, trials here are going very well, we should be in production
before Christmas.
John McCoy, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Central Systems Administrator
stems Administrator
Mills College, Oakland CA
510-430-3321
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Rosenman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Malte S. Stretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John McCoy, Jr"
<[EMA
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.42-cvs: spamd: Accept interupted?
> On Monday 30 September 2002 22:06 CET John McCoy, Jr. wrote:
> > I'm not sure why but the line numbers very from the so
D]] On Behalf Of
Malte S. Stretz
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.42-cvs: spamd: Accept interupted?
On Monday 30 September 2002 18:49 CET John McCoy, Jr. wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > I put the 2.42 tarball up yesterday, and now I&#x
I'm getting this too with 2.42
perl 5.6.1
Sol 7
using qmail-scanner 1.14
Spamd started with:
/usr/local/bin/spamd -d -x -s local3
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Larry Rosenman
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:17 AM
To: [EM
I was surprised to see that the "AWL: Auto-whitelist
adjustment" rule added 31.1 (thirty-one point one!) to
the score of the following email from this very list
server.
That was easily enough to mis-flag it as spam.
I'd appreciate it if someone would explain how an AWL
adjustment is supposed
Good point.
I hadn't considered the transient nature of
blacklists.
Having said that, it seems to me that the content of
spam also changes over time, yet the GA seems to cope
with that.
Perhaps it's just a matter of degree
If the content spam is consistent _enough_ to permit
GA scoring,
On Thu:10:01, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> > Good point. Combinations of some rules may be more
> > indicative of spam than others.
> >
> > It would be great if the GA could infer the boolean
> > logic, as well as the scores.
>
>
How about sampling the network checks, so that instead
of 400,000, only doing, say 500?
It seems to me that sampling a few hundred network
checks would arrive at a better score for them than
hand coding.
My two cents,
Kingsley
Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed:17:57, Craig R Hug
Good point. Combinations of some rules may be more
indicative of spam than others.
It would be great if the GA could infer the boolean
logic, as well as the scores.
Thanks,
Kingsley
On Wed:20:45, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 the voices made Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wr
On Wed:11:43, Rob Winters wrote:
[...]
> SA does not give any credit to the cumulative effect
[...]
It seems to me that properly weighted scores would
avoid this problem. I'd like to think that a good
optimization algorithm, such as a genetic algorithm,
could do the job.
Thanks,
Kingsley
__
Hi Craig,
Thanks for explaining why some scores aren't evolved.
I'm an old GA and optimization programmer, so I
naturally find SA's use of a GA pretty interesting.
You suggested using all network tests.
I've installed razor and made sure spamassassin isn't
called with the -L option.
However,
I installed SA 2.20 a few days ago and it's
mis-categorizing more emails than I'd like. I'll
*guess* that it's missing 10% of spams and
mislabelling 1% of my legitimate email as spam.
The obvious explanation is that I'm doing something
wrong, like not using razor or spamd.
However, I noticed th
Daniel,
Being an old AI/GA programmer who just started using
SA, your post fascinates me. Thanks for the update on
your research.
On Mon:22:07, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[...]
> My only gripe is that having so many rules is somewhat clumsy in the
> scores file, even using arguments. What if spamass
This is probably a simple stupid question:
I want to be able to extract words that were flagged by SA and include
them in the SA report email, along with the score and test that was
performed. Ie, "Hit! Word: BODY: Uses words and phrases
which indicate porn." This is most specific for the "por
> > People in the US are... well... somewhat "limited" when it comes to
> > understanding the world... Treat them like childern, and hope that they
one day
> > will grow up. };-)
Hey!
Don't screw up our illusions!
We're the greatest country in the world! Our President said so! ;^)
Hones
Gcc 3.0.4:
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
Thread model: single
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob
Plankers
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:34 PM
To: Kenneth Garreau Jr.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SA-milter on
Has anyone here been able to compile SA-milter on AIX? I'm riddled with
a billion compile errors, including the following:
c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -O2 -Wall -c spamass-milter.cpp
In file included from spamass-milter.cpp:98:
spamass-milter.h:9: parse error before `&' token
spamass-mil
>I mean, I can _always_ add another "From:" tag to fool SF, but I
> > don't want my "abuse@" address to get spamphrased ;^).
> >Thanks!
> >Don
> >
> > --
> >
> > Donald L. Greer, Jr [EMAIL PROTE
43 matches
Mail list logo
