At 1/15/2004 06:04 PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>> The last line is the new one, and it escapes any % signs in the
>> Message-ID. I don't use spamd so I can't confirm this to be the case,
>> but seems likely as I think it also uses Sys::Syslog.
>
>That shouldn't matter as spamd uses
> syslog
At 1/12/2004 02:47 PM -0500, Mick Szucs wrote:
>A message arrived the other day that when it was processed by spamd was logged
>in /var/log/messages instead of /var/log/maillog (like all other mail
>processed by spamd.) The message in question contained a high volume of
>control characters in t
At 8/4/2003 02:17 PM -0700, Mark H wrote:
>What I CAN'T do is send an email to SA for training. Since I don't use shell mail at
>all, there is really no way that I know to send email back from my home PC to SA,
>with an indication that its spam, and the filters should be trained to recognize it
At 8/2/2003 10:48 AM -0400, Pat Traynor wrote:
>
>My primary question is this - I've got version 2.54, which is nearly the
>latest version. But the spammers are customizing their messages to fool
>this current version, and I get a fair amount of spam every day. I have
>to believe that you all are
At 7/8/2003 06:23 PM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>The snapshot doesn't depend on Amavis for this. Any similar product with Amavis'
>properties could be used as proxy. But the normal Postfix/SA filter routine wouldn't
>have the same possibilities as Amavis. I can't comment on spampd (that's spamp
Hello,
A quick note to let anyone interested know that I've released a new version of the
spampd script (not to be confused with spamd). There's a few new features, but the
main improvement is in terms of reliability. The script no longer takes any
responsibility for the mail, acting as a tra
Chris,
>Would some one please explain to me how this mail got to me, or where I could go to
>learn more.
To use the classic snail-mail analogy, what you're seeing is the letter itself, not
the envelope it was delivered in. The envelope in this case is the actual SMTP
session which led to th
At 5/29/2002 04:36 PM -0500, Greg Blakely wrote:
>I have this setup working using spamproxyd, or filterproxy as the author
>of that perl script called it (in the version I have).
If you're going to use spamproxyd then IMHO you're better off using the script I
announced earlier this week. It's
Thanks for your comments Vivek.
>Looking at the code, it seems to use Net::SMTP::Server::Client to read
>the message, then process it. You can lose your mail this way if your
>program or postfix dies between the time postfix hands it to your
>program and your program hands it back to postfix. T
Hello fellow spam assassins,
If anyone is interested, I (finally) posted a script I've been using for
the past month or so in our hosting operation as an "advanced" content
filter with Postfix. It's an SMTP proxy/relay server (in Perl) which calls
SA to scan messages. Similar to spamproxyd b
At 5/7/2002 09:58 AM -0500, dman wrote:
>The conclusion is that your friend gets the short end of the stick
>because his ISP allows spammers to use their service. You can, of
>course, change any part of SA on your installation.
>
Actually this rule gets triggered by anyone who uses Earthlin
11 matches
Mail list logo
