I'm using postfix, amavisd-new, and spamassassin. I've tried figuring
out several different 'spam stats' packages now, including
spamstats.pl and mailgraph. I sort of got mailgraph to work, except
that the data is rubbish. Spamstats (which looks like exactly what
I'm looking for) returns all ze
Please disregard my previous under this subject. It never fails - I
fight with the problem for 2 days, 10 minutes after I yell for help, I
figure out what I was doing wrong.
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
---
Well, it was inevitable - usenet is starting to get enough spam posted
in newsgroups to annoy me.
offhand, it looks to me like spamassassin could be 'hooked into'
leafnode during the in.coming processing step. Has anyone done any
work on the idea?
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:29:28 -0800, you wrote:
>hello,
>
>Due to having false positives from Outlook 2003 (my business partner will just NOT
>move off of Outlook) I whitelisted
>our domain in my local.cf file.
>
>The trouble I'm having is that lots of folks are spoofing the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>a
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:44:09 +0200, you wrote:
>Stewart, John schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2003 um 14:02:31 -0500:
>>
>> I finally got around to installing 2.60 today in my system, running it with
>> amavisd-new (which I also bumped up to the latest, 20030616.
>>
>> I'm very happy that the b
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:13:27 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Michael W.Cocke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:37 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] CPAN or RPM's?
>
>--snip--
>
>> And, to bring this post back toward the s
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:33:09 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Jeff Lasman wrote:
>> They announced the phase out at least a year ago; perhaps longer.
>
>I just spoke to Red Hat, and none of their front line people could name a
>date, though they 'guessed' that it must have been later
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:38:57 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> you will also need something like qmail-scanner,
>> and need to patch and
>> recompile qmail to support calling another
>> queue...
>
>One appendum to that advice ...
>
>There are 4 great open source MTAs out there : Postfix, Exim, sendm
rceforge.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, Michael W. Cocke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm about to switch from sendmail to q
I'm about to switch from sendmail to qmail and I was wondering if
anyone could point me to a decent "how to" on configuring qmail and
spamassassin.
Thanks!
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
-
Please note - D
here's part of my local.cf file -
rawtext MSCUST6a /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6a another MS worm
score MSCUST6a 5
full MSCUST6 /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6 msjunk
score MSCUST6 5
and here's an except of the message that's getting thru with
here's part of my local.cf file -
rawtext MSCUST6a /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6a another MS worm
score MSCUST6a 5
full MSCUST6 /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6 msjunk
score MSCUST6 5
and here's an except of the message that's getting thru with
here's part of my local.cf file -
rawtext MSCUST6a /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6a another MS worm
score MSCUST6a 5
full MSCUST6 /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6 msjunk
score MSCUST6 5
and here's an except of the message that's getting thru with
here's part of my local.cf file -
rawtext MSCUST6a /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6a another MS worm
score MSCUST6a 5
full MSCUST6 /latest version of security update/i
describe MSCUST6 msjunk
score MSCUST6 5
and here's an except of the message that's getting thru with
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:07:21 -0500, you wrote:
[much snippage]
>Your options are a) smarthost, or b) get a static allocation with proper
>DNS (forward and reverse) and current domain and SWIP contact info. Make
>sure your mail server sends a FQDN as its HELO greeting and that your
>, , and role
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:07:21 -0500, you wrote:
[much snippage]
>Your options are a) smarthost, or b) get a static allocation with proper
>DNS (forward and reverse) and current domain and SWIP contact info. Make
>sure your mail server sends a FQDN as its HELO greeting and that your
>, , and role
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:39:18 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 08:13, Michael W. Cocke wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Pardon me while I expose my ignorance. What's a smarthost, and given
>> me by which provider? All I get from my so-called ISP is a wire with
>> an I
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:26:11 +0100, you wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Michael W. Cocke wrote:
>| I think the odds are against it being either of these 2 programs, but
>| I'm losing what's left of my mind Mailman won't send any
>
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:31:27 +0200, you wrote:
>Michael W. Cocke wrote on Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:52:09 -0400:
>
>> they won't
>> accept messages from my domain because I use dyndns and not a static
>> IP.
>>
>
>No problem, use the smarthost given by your p
Just FYI, AOL is doing reverse DNS and won't accept incoming email if
they don't approve of the sending IP address.. as in, they won't
accept messages from my domain because I use dyndns and not a static
IP. I wonder how long that stupid idea will last?
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution in action. O
I think the odds are against it being either of these 2 programs, but
I'm losing what's left of my mind Mailman won't send any
mail No error messages, logs look ok, and it doesn't LOOK like
mimedefang or spamassassin has anything to do with the problem... but
I figured I'd ask. Any wei
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:11:58 +0200, you wrote:
>SA thinks mail from TheBat 2.0 is spam:
I've never seen any email from TheBat that WASN'T spam.
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
-
Please note - Due to the in
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 06:18:45 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:
>
> The biggest issue with Red Hat 9 is that they ship with a SA of
>version 2.44. This works but not perfect. And I wanted sa-learn and
>learned it is only on version 2.50 and up. So I got the RPM version of
>SA which is version 2.523 o
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:05:49 -0400, you wrote:
>Try upgrading to 2.60, it's much better at parsing these messages. That
>spam is using a trick which makes the message body invisible to SA, it's
>fixed in 2.60.
>
>
I was offline for a couple of days - has 2.60 gone gold?
Mike-
Mornings: Evolution
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:30:35 -0700, you wrote:
>> I personally have been putting in private procmail rules to scrape
>> them off into a virus bounce folder. But there are a lot of different
>> patterns out there and I am only partially affective.
>
>yes, I did also find an SA rule that will at le
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:51:07 +1200, you wrote:
Now you're double posting. 8-)>
>>Second, I took DCC back out of my configuration and the messages
>>stopped bouncing. I trust that ends that argument?
>
>Well, not really :) I don't think the real problem has been isolated.
>
>First, SA doe
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:21:23 +1200, you wrote:
>At 11:57 3/08/2003 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>Please, one posting of the same message is enough.
>>
>>Michael W. Cocke wrote:
>> > Has anyone who uses DCC had problems with it stopping this mailing
>> > lis
Has anyone who uses DCC had problems with it stopping this mailing
list?
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com.
Has anyone who uses DCC had problems with it stopping this mailing
list?
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com.
For some reason I can't find (yet), I'm bouncing messages from this
list again. Sorry! Working on it...
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide
For some reason I can't find (yet), I'm bouncing messages from this
list again. Sorry! Working on it...
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide
The docs seem to say if a message is learned as ham, and then
re-learned as spam, the 'ham' learning is undone. Am I understanding
this properly? And has anyone tested it?
The reason I ask is this (and don't tell me it's a stupid way to do
this - I'm trying to cope with idiots, I mean end-users,
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:14:36 -0400, you wrote:
>Sorry if it sounded like I was replying just to you. I was following the
>thread and suggesting a different route and supplying an answer rather than
>just do something else.
>
>Great, but the advisement was to go the CPAN route. I would counter t
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:49:55 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Michael W. Cocke
>
>> There's also some kind of dependency error in the redhat RPM/
>> SpamAssassin chain. I never did get the most recent RPM to install,
>> it
On 28 Jul 2003 09:05:58 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 07:14, Bonny wrote:
>> In data Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:27:44 -0400
>> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scriveva:
>>
>>
>> > If you want to know in-depth, check out the changelog:
>> >
>> > http://www.spamassassin.org/dist/Changes
>> >
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:31:10 -0400, you wrote:
>You are denying a message I sent to the spamassassin list and you! You are
>denying it because it looks like spam! Please don't do this for posts to the
>SA list or direct replies to you from a post you made on the SA list, or 90%
>of the reply/posts
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:04:11 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Michael W. Cocke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:00 PM
>> To: Chris Santerre
>> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] FW: Returned mail: see transcript f
Everytime I think I'm starting to understand this thing... GR.
Could come kind person tell me what I'm doing wrong? As near as I can
figure, this rule -
body IPURL /http:\/\/[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}/i
describe IPURLReceived has URL link to IP address
score
I've been getting a lot of HTML spam lately, so I decided to take a
look at 20_html_tests.cf. There's a lot of tests, but I don't see any
score lines... What am I missing?
Thanks!
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
I'm trying to work out a rule to bounce messages that contain no text
- just a mime or base64 attachment. Using (and new to) SA 2.55. Any
hints?
Thanks!
Mike-
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
Please note - Due to the i
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:31:25 +0200, you wrote:
>Michael W. Cocke wrote on Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:02:06 -0400:
>
>> Who do I have to beat up to make this thing work?
>>
>
>I'd guess there's something wrong with your Perl installation. Or it's
>that UTF la
I treasure my ignorance of perl, but was silly enough to try to
install spamassassin 2.55. I run 'perl Makefile.PL' It complains
that it can't find 'pod2man' which is in /usr/bin, but I can live with
that. Then I try to run make and get a missing separator error on
line 72. ok, I'm game. I
42 matches
Mail list logo
