Jon Gabrielson said:
> I've heard this more than once, but the alternative to automatically
> bouncing mail is to change your email address every couple
> months which in effect starts automatically bouncing the mail
> anyways. I really don't see the difference.
Auto-bouncing spam also auto-boun
Doug Appleton said:
> hey Folks..
>
> Set up SA here and still recieving quite a bit of spam..
Well, you will continue to receive the spam; SA doesn't delete it. It only
tags it, and so you need another method - procmail/maildrop recipies, etc
- to actually throw the spam away. (A bad idea, BTW,
dogface said:
> hey mike,
>
> SA works Great with postfix.
> what i am looking for is a web interface for
> each user to be able to change their SA preferences
So what you want really has nothing to do with postfix, or whatever MTA
you are running. I got it now.
> i actually have 2 postfix's ru
Noord G.J.M. van said:
>
> If I run the UNIX 'at' command on the machine on which my mail is
> delivered, then the message that 'at' sends is classified as spam. An
> example is attached below.
>
> Is there a simple setting that will alter this? It appears that I can't
> use the value of 'From:
Ein Bielaczyc said:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I am the network admin for a fairly large school district. We have some
> 5000+ users and at least 2000 of them use our email system. Our network
> configuration, like so many other school districts, is largely based on
> Novell Netware.
Netware good.
> Our ema
Scott Henderson said:
> Since there doesn't seem to be any amavis mail list,
I'll be the people on the AMaVis list would be surprised to hear they
don't exist. :-)
http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=6006
---
This sf.net email is sponso
Rossz Vamos-Wentworth said:
>> Rossz Vamos-Wentworth said:
>> >> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*
>> >
>> > I noticed you escaped the *, but Russ did not in his example. Is
>> the escape necessary?
>> >
>> > BTW, it's that easy? Dang.
>>
>> Isn't "^X-Spam-Status: Yes" even easier? less typing, an
Rossz Vamos-Wentworth said:
>> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*
>
> I noticed you escaped the *, but Russ did not in his example. Is the
> escape necessary?
>
> BTW, it's that easy? Dang.
Isn't "^X-Spam-Status: Yes" even easier? less typing, and no worry about
missing an asterisk.
Tony Hoyle said:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Michael Leone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 18 July 2002 16:15
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Well, I can try it again.
Lars Hansson said:
> On Wednesday 17 July 2002 20:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it
>> would take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4.
>
> Something must be wrong with your installation or setup.
> My average time
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 23:28, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would
> >take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4.
>
> It should be, AFAIR, it disable RBL check that takes some time (if nop
> CPU resources).
I already ha
Mike Burger said:
> if you're using the default behavior of letting SA mark the subject
> line, then filtering via postfix works just fine.
>
> It might mean, however, that you have to enable procmail as the default
> MDA in your postfix/main.cf file.
It's not *necessarily* a requirement to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Jul 2002 at 7:40, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Okay, I'm at wit's end. How do I unsubscribe?
Here's how to unsubscribe:
First, ask your Internet Provider to mail you an
Unsubscribing Kit. Then follow these directions.
The kit will most likely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30 Jun 2002 at 23:33, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>
> | reliable,
>
> sendmail is, I think, the MTA with the most security holes (in its
> lifetime). At least, I have heard of a great many holes in sendmail,
> but not nearly as many in exim, p
Figured it out! My spamd doesn't seem to like the "-a" option. If I use
it, spamc/spamd don't tag anything. If I leave that option out (using
only "-c -L -d"), it tags fine.
workhorse:/var/spool/spamassassin# ps ax | grep spamd
28134 ?S 0:05 perl /usr/sbin/spamd -c -L -d --pidfile=/v
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 16:34, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Michael Leone wrote:
> | On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 13:04, Michael Agbaglo wrote:
>
> | > I suppose Net-DNS looks for test::more and doesn't find it
> | &g
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 16:34, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Michael Leone wrote:
> | On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 13:04, Michael Agbaglo wrote:
>
> | > I suppose Net-DNS looks for test::more and doesn't find it
> | &g
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 13:04, Michael Agbaglo wrote:
>
>
> Michael Leone wrote:
>
> > -Forwarded Message-
> > Sorry; I hit SEND before the mail log got posted.
> >
> > NOTE: running "spamassassin -P" *does* tag as spam.Running "spam
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 21:22, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 04:57:25PM -0700, Dan Allen wrote:
> | Michael Leone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> | > On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
> | > > I can't figure this one out, but
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:24, Dan Allen wrote:
> I can't figure this one out, but I have to soon or it is going to be
> my rear in the hole. I switched over from junkfilter to
> spamassassin and thought all was working, until I send myself a
> message from an external yahoo account I had. All loc
-Forwarded Message-
Sorry; I hit SEND before the mail log got posted.
NOTE: running "spamassassin -P" *does* tag as spam.Running "spamc" I get
no headers - no "X-Spam-Status", no "X-Spam-Level", none of the normal
output of a SA check. Mail log does show spamd getting called.
Mail log
On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 14:39, Jeremy A. Oddo wrote:
> I'm still new to all this, but I just got my SA working last night. If
> you are using vpopmail, I may be able to help. One thing that you may
> want to try is to direct spam directly into spamc like this:
>
> /usr/bin/spamc -f -u vpopma
This got flagged as spam by SA 2.31, on Debian unstable. Why? And what
should I do to prevent such mis-flaggings in future?
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
workhorse.mike-leone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP i
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 21:16, David B. Bitton wrote:
> how did this make it past spam assassin?
Your message got flagged as spam for me, using 2.3.0:
X-Razor-id: 3d79d76e0c60dd0e72660b706dc3c40e34b7a697
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.6
tests=PORN_11,CLICK_BELOW,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD,HTTP_USERNAME_U
On 11 Jun 2002 at 6:19, A. Schirmacher wrote:
> II think any email containing an executable is spam.
> Windows executables can have extensions other than
> *.exe, for example *.bat, *.scr, and whatnot. Those
> executables are very dangerous because the reader
> might not recognize them as an ex
25 matches
Mail list logo
