Re: [SAtalk] New virus posing as Microsoft

2003-09-19 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Just block name="*.scr" and name="*.exe" you should probably be blocking these anyways. Anyone who needs to send an exe can easily just zip it. Here is my procmail rule: :0B * Content-Type: application|Content-Type: audio * name=".*.pif"|name=".*.scr"|name=".*.exe"|name=".*.com" /tmp/viruses

Re: [SAtalk] New virus posing as Microsoft

2003-09-19 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Just block name="*.scr" and name="*.exe" you should probably be blocking these anyways. Anyone who needs to send an exe can easily just zip it. Here is my procmail rule: :0B * Content-Type: application|Content-Type: audio * name=".*.pif"|name=".*.scr"|name=".*.exe"|name=".*.com" /tmp/viruses

Re: [SAtalk] Rule for MS Security Alert

2003-09-19 Thread Jon Gabrielson
ust block name="*.scr" and name="*.exe" you should probably be blocking these anyways. Anyone who needs to send an exe can easily just zip it. Here is my procmail rule: :0B * Content-Type: application|Content-Type: audio * name=".*.pif"|name=".*.scr"|name=".*.exe"|name=".*.com" /tmp/viruses

Re: [SAtalk] RD - Here is a rule to check for Verisign redirect domain

2003-09-17 Thread Jon Gabrielson
The correct way to do this is not "nslookup sitefinder.verisign.com", but rather "nslookup www.safsdafdsfadsfsdafadsfdsaf.com" or some other garbage address. If you program spamassassin to do this, you can easily keep up with any ip changes that might happen. Jon. On Wednesday 17 September 2003

Re: [SAtalk] RD - Here is a rule to check for Verisign redirect domain

2003-09-17 Thread Jon Gabrielson
The correct way to do this is not "nslookup sitefinder.verisign.com", but rather "nslookup www.safsdafdsfadsfsdafadsfdsaf.com" or some other garbage address. If you program spamassassin to do this, you can easily keep up with any ip changes that might happen. Jon. On Wednesday 17 September 200

Re: [SAtalk] RD - Here is a rule to check for Verisign redirect domain

2003-09-17 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Nope, it returns them all on my box. i.e. when i type "nslookup www.yahoo.com" i get about 20 ip addresses. So presumably, looking up a garbage address should also work even with round-robin. Jon. On Wednesday 17 September 2003 01:18 pm, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Jon Gabrielson <

Re: [SAtalk] RD - Here is a rule to check for Verisign redirect domain

2003-09-17 Thread Jon Gabrielson
The correct way to do this is not "nslookup sitefinder.verisign.com", but rather "nslookup www.safsdafdsfadsfsdafadsfdsaf.com" or some other garbage address. If you program spamassassin to do this, you can easily keep up with any ip changes that might happen. Jon. On Wednesday 17 September 2003

Re: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

2003-08-30 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Is there a way to change this behavior? It seems to me that a high bayes score also shows that it is spam and it might be possible to grab a few new tokens from the spam which you otherwise wouldn't get. Jon. On Friday 29 August 2003 12:22 pm, Tom Meunier wrote: > Somebody already answered the s

Re: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

2003-08-29 Thread Jon Gabrielson
The correct syntax for your local.cf file is: scoreBAYES_99 5.0 scoreBAYES_90 4.0 etc Cheers, Jon. On Friday 29 August 2003 11:42 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Greetings, > > I'd like to increase the score for certain bayes > confidence levels. My understanding is

[SAtalk] adjusting required token hits for bayes

2003-08-29 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Is there a way to tell bayes to require at least X number of hits? I received a piece of ham that was flagged the following: BAYES_99 (3.0 points) BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 0.9990, hits: 'N:H*r:N.NN.NN':1,] I would like to set the minimum

[SAtalk] Re: spamassassin at SMTP time (was: how do i turn off the automatic replies to spam)

2002-12-15 Thread Jon Gabrielson
This is exactly what I have been looking for. Does anyone know of any other MTAs that support these types of features? If not, I will probably be switching to exim. (i'm currently running postfix, but the SPAM features listed below would be worth the pain of switching) Thanks, Jon. Drav Sloan

[SAtalk] why sending to /dev/null is a really bad idea. (A 10+ FP)

2002-12-13 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I found this piece of non-spam in my spam folder today. I only found it after he sent a reply(with passcode) to my autoreply. I guess I should watch my spam folder closer. Anyways, here it is, and unfortunately, I can't really think of a solution to avoid this type of problem other than bouncing

[SAtalk] Re: ideas for collaborative spam-filtering techniques?

2002-12-04 Thread Jon Gabrielson
> Justin Mason wrote: > > BTW, just met with some researchers in Trinity College here in Dublin for > > lunch, an AI guy and a distributed-systems peer-to-peer guy, they're > > *both* looking at starting anti-spam projects. > > > > So, wondering -- does anyone have good ideas for new systems in tho

Re: [SAtalk] blacklists of spamfriendly urls. (and suggestion for new test, if it doesn't exist)

2002-12-04 Thread Jon Gabrielson
To my knowledge, spamassassin only uses blacklists on headers, i think that it should use it on urls in the body as well. EVERY piece of spam out there has contact info, or they can't sell their product, and that contact info is probably one of the hardest things to keep changing. If there were b

[SAtalk] blacklists of spamfriendly urls. (and suggestion for new test, if it doesn't exist)

2002-12-03 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Are there any blacklists for spamfriendly urls? Or is there a way to make spamassassin use the existing blacklists to check out the ips of urls in the body of the message. Most of my spam seems to have bogus email addresses, but at the same time have valid urls to either buy their product or to

[SAtalk] FP and suggestion for new rule.

2002-11-25 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I received a FP today that had the following header: X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [192.168.1.20] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. I have also noticed other "commercial" filters in headers before. Would adding a rule that gives a few positive

Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

2002-11-25 Thread Jon Gabrielson
gt; From: Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null > > On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote: > > Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page > > explaining how I bo

[SAtalk] Re: Spamassassin-talk digest, Vol 1 #794 - 38 msgs

2002-11-25 Thread Jon Gabrielson
This is a REALLY bad idea, 3+ is not very high. Both my discover card statement and the slashdot newsletter have both been flagged by razor with ac > 3. My discover card statement came in at a 5. IF you insist on doing this, pick a reasonable number like 15 To set the number, set the ac value in yo

Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

2002-11-24 Thread Jon Gabrielson
> > So, what that is saying is that if the subject does not contain 332762 > then send it to /etc/smrsh/bounceSPAM $4 $2 > correct. > > (I have no idea what the 4th and 2nd argument would be). > The 4th and 2nd argument happen to be username and email address respectively(from the arguments pa

Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

2002-11-24 Thread Jon Gabrielson
On Sunday 24 November 2002 18:32, Dark Alchemist wrote: > Jon Gabrielson wrote: > > It seems to be a common question to ask how to > > /dev/null high scoring spam. This should probably > > be in the FAQs (as well as a few safer methods). > > Anyways, i thought t

[SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

2002-11-24 Thread Jon Gabrielson
It seems to be a common question to ask how to /dev/null high scoring spam. This should probably be in the FAQs (as well as a few safer methods). Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce high scoring spam, give the user a passcode to bypass th

[SAtalk] SPAM_PHRASE_00_01

2002-11-22 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I have two questions: 1) How can you see what words are generating the spam phrase hits and how can you disable individual words? 2) shouldn't the below numbers be in order? ie. why does 00_01 score higher that 01_02 and why is 55_XX the second lowest? 50_scores.cf:score SPAM_P

[SAtalk] false negative

2002-11-18 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Here is a false negative i received today. I already reported it to razor. Is this the best place to report it for spamassassin? Jon. --- Begin Message --- Dear Sirs/Madam We found your company on www.directfreight.com's website and believe that our Hong Kong Fax Line service will assist your c

[SAtalk] error message: sh: /tmp/sa.5249.BhnbyN: Permission denied

2002-11-14 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Procmail gives the following error message when spamassassin is run. What is this error, and how do I fix it? /tmp is already writable by all, so it shouldn't be having trouble writing to that location. Jon. sh: /tmp/sa.5036.BhnbyN: Permission denied sh: /tmp/sa.5036.BhnbyN: Permission denied

[SAtalk] installing DCC and pyzor breaks spamc but not spamassassin

2002-11-14 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Last night I installed DCC and pyzor, and now spamc is hanging. I have restarted spamd several times, but spamc still hangs. spamassassin still works, with the same command line options, and spamassassin --lint is clean. Any ideas why this is happening, or how I can diagnose the problem? Before

[SAtalk] spamassassin and razor.

2002-11-14 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Does spamassassin give higher scores to items in the razor database with a higher confidence level? If not, is this something that is even possible? Jon. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site wi

[SAtalk] disabling nonlocal tests if score is already above the threshold

2002-11-12 Thread Jon Gabrielson
As far as I can tell, nonlocal tests only raise the score, never lower it. If this is the case, it might be nice to be able to skip nonlocal tests if the score is already above the threshold. Jon. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: To lea

Re: [SAtalk] 2 more false negatives.

2002-11-12 Thread Jon Gabrielson
[score: 1] > * 0.2 -- BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED > * 3.9 -- Listed in Razor2, see http://razor.sf.net/ > * 2.7 -- Listed in DCC, see http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

[SAtalk] 2 more false negatives.

2002-11-12 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Attached are 2 more false negatives. Jon. p.s. is there a better place to report these? >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 11 22:20:37 2002 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from zhuhai.mbfax.com (unknown [218.13.250.81]) by www.directfreight.com

[SAtalk] false negative and suggestion for new test.

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Gabrielson
imagine it ever being a valid reply address. opt-out maybe, but not opt-in False negative is attached, Jon Gabrielson >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 18:15:20 2002 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mtsbp519.opmnet.net (mtsbp519.op

[SAtalk] false positive

2002-11-07 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I have a false positive where the presense of a [u in the subject line i.e. [unknown] or [usa] causes: SPAM: UNDESIRED_LANGUAGE_BODY (4.0 points) BODY: Written in an undesired language When i remove [u from the subject line this rule no longer triggers. Can someone explain to me why this is

[SAtalk] a false negative.

2002-11-05 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I have been getting a huge amount of false negatives since i upgraded spamassassin. Attached is one of the more obvious false negatives. Any suggestions about why this message got through spamassassin? It is loaded with tons of pornographic keywords, etc... Thanks, Jon. --- Begin Message --- Ti

[SAtalk] how to bounce mail above a threshhold?

2002-10-29 Thread Jon Gabrielson
Several people have been asking how to redirect mail straight to /dev/null I personally would be interested in knowing what the simplest way to bounce messages above a certain threshold would be. I do not want to delete a message without at least warning the recipient that their message was not

Re: [SAtalk] Message not SPAM; score is 5.1 :-/

2002-10-19 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I would personally consider the following email spam, but more to the point, I get very little ALLCAP spams, and the rules LINES_OF_YELLING and UPPERCASE_25_50 are more often flagged on legitimate mail. I was wondering if other people are finding that these rules are actually effective in flagging