Rich Puhek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 15:45:
>
> I put together a little script to generate a summary. An example recent
> spam gives the following output:
Looks nice. However, the mail has already been forwarded to my Exchange
server, so it's not on my mail gateway any
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 15:21:
> At 02:47 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 14:22:
> >> At 02:12 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >> >I have a spam that scored
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 14:22:
> At 02:12 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >I have a spam that scored like this:
> >
> >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0
> >tests=BAYES_56,
> >
I have a spam that scored like this:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_56,
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, HTML_60_70, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02, HTML_MESSAGE
In my local.cf, I made the test HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02 score 3 points. That
would mean that the other tes
Brian McGroarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/12/04 at 23:37:
> What's the proper way to suggest a new filter to the SA developers?
>
> I'm getting a TON of mail with a bunch of random uncommon-but-real
> words to thwart Bayesian filtering, combined with a single picture
> link. Spama
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 07/07/03 at 22:20:
> Hi All,
> I've got spam assassin working like a dream on our small sendmail box.
> works like a bought one.what i want to do is setup a gateway arrangment
> for an Exchange Server (everyone shudders, i know).
>
> li
Jason Haar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 07/03/03 at 23:14:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:29:47PM -0400, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> > So, no rant from me, but I *do* think the list admin (or the admin of
> > the system that hosts the list) should be making every attempt to block
> > viri
Theo Van Dinter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 06/01/03 at 11:14:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 08:34:52AM -0500, Tom Meunier wrote:
> > I don't understand the Bayes safety zone, where it's set, and why it's
>
> hard coded.
>
> > there. Looked in MAN SA-LEARN but didn't find anything. Anyo
Patrick Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 05/29/03 at 23:23:
> This may be a silly question -- but why not just have Sendmail do the
> LDAP account lookup itself (using the LDAP_ROUTING feature)? Seems like
> it'd be quite a bit less overhead to deal with than passing stuff to a
>
Maxime Ritter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/29/02 at 13:27:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Mike Leone wrote:
> > > > > if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
> > > > > {
> > > > > echo "Your Email was Rejected by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 21:43:
> Maybe I need to rephrase that: It informs the *sender*. What I like about
> exit code 100 is that it doesn't queue the message and clog my queue.
> Anyway, I've tested this. It definitely passes the echo back. Here i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 18:20:
>
> This varies depending on the MDA. With maildrop (used with Maildir), you
> would have something like:
>
> if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
> {
> echo "Your Email was Rejected by our SPAM filters. Sorry."
> EXIT
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 15:36:
> I'd say that's perfectly reasonable.. Unfortunately some of mailing lists
> flat-out munge any existing reply-to's.. which is the bad part everyone
> objects to.
>
> ie: if I explicitly set a reply-to of myself because I w
Tom Allison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 07:36:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >--On Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:07 PM -0500 Tom Allison
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >| My question is if anyone knows anything about running
> >| spamassassin/spamc/spamd under sieve.
>
Duncan Findlay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 00:40:
> Fair enough, I guess. On the Debian lists, Mail-Followup-To is the
> header everyone lives by. (Probably because we all use mutt)
Not everyone. :-) When I read my email from work, I do it via Squirrelmail,
a web client. A
Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 02:00:
> Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-12 23:57:48 -0500]:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:23PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > > If you really want people to reply on-list your should add a Reply-To
> > > header that co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/07/02 at
20:06:
> I need to remove a sentence from the report SA generates. Specifically
> the part about "This mail is probably spam.". Apparently it's confusing
> some of my users. I'm using MIMEDefang as the milter glue but
What's
Rich Duzenbury ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/25/02 at 18:43:
>
> >
> >Auto-bouncing spam also auto-bounces FPs, and you lose legitmate mail. Tag
> >everything with SA, and no need to change addresses; simply route all
> >tagged mail to a special folder, which you check every few days.
Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/23/02 at 23:48:
> Now, I got the same thing, but since my threshold is set to 5.0, it got
> listed as spam.
Since I whitelist this mailing list, as I do for all my mailing lists, it
came thru for me. Personally, I like the way the subject lin
Steve Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/20/02 at 13:18:
> | X-Spam-Status is ok with Yes, hits required but how do i get rid
> | of the tests= part?
>
> procmail/formail, or hack the SA code.
>
>
> | I do not want the report at all in the message body how do u get
> | rid of this
Philip Mak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 15:44:
> if (/^X-Spam-Flag: *YES/)
> {
> exception {
> to Mail/killed
> }
> }
>
Why do you have the move to the folder as an exception, and not a direct
action of the if?
I use:
if ( /X-Spam-Status: Yes/ )
Ross Vandegrift ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 20:59:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:59:28PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > There are many mail senders out there that send ligitimate mail that
> > often gets flagged as spam, and finding ways to avoid being tripped up
> > by these
Christoph Bieselt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 05:47:
> Hi together,
>
> I am using Postfix with Procmail to call SA. As usual the procmail is
> called with the user defined in /etc/postfix/master.cf where the
> procmail transport is specified. SA is called by the user cyrus
Christoph Bieselt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 11 11, 02 at 07:37:
> I implemented spamassassin in my following environment:
>
> - Postfix for SMTP
> - Cyrus Imapd (2.0.16)
> - Procmail delivery
> - Spamassassin (2.43)
>
>
> For postfix I changed the main.cf to:
> mailbox_transport = procm
* spamassassin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 14, 02 at 12:06:
>
> How is everyone using SA? Do you auto delete spam after some high score? I
> would like to find the safest score to delete spam, and keep the other mail
> with smaller score.
I never auto-delete anything. :-) Losing real m
* McClung, Darren W. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 11, 02 at 09:34:
> This is OT, but pretty important. If these messenger spams are getting
> through, your NetBIOS ports are open to the outside, which is VERY BAD.
Saw the same reports on the WinNT list, and one of the people there
defini
* Michael Moncur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 05, 02 at 19:09:
> > ok_languages en
> >
> > It must be listed, that's where I got it ;-)
>
> That's nice, but I was talking about ok_locales. Completely different thing.
>
> Anyone know whether "en" is valid for ok_locales? I thought it was
* Jack Coates ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 05, 02 at 12:39:
> To reinforce what a bad idea that is, here's an average week's worth of
> false positives in my quarantine box:
>
> three online-billing notifications (Citibank, AT&T, Working Assets)
> two LPI newsletters, one of which was im
* Doug Appleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 01, 02 at 13:08:
> On Tuesday 01 October 2002 09:44 am, you wrote:
>
> Thanks for getting back to me.. Sorry to be such a pain , but literally I'm
> new at this Red Hat thing.. I'm more of an NT person.. Anyhow... This is what
> I need to ha
* Florin Andrei ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 26, 02 at 23:43:
> On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 06:42, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > "FA" == Florin Andrei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > FA> (i'll describe my situation first, the questions are at the end)
> > FA> I managed to make SpamAssassin
* Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 21, 02 at 00:50:
> I have "X-Spam-Status" in every message that SA scans.
SA scanning is different than when Amavisd-new calls SA modules to spam
scan. Amavisd-new does not call all SA modules, such as adding the
X-Spam-Status header for all ema
* Avi Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 20, 02 at 23:57:
> Is SA supposed to always insert a X-Spam-Status tag?
>
> I just started using SA + Postfix + amavisd-new and it seems to me that
> SA does not insert this tag into non-spam messages. Is this correct?
Correct. Amavisd-new on
Saw this on the postfix list; thought it might be of use. Posting to the
postfix list if you have questions that impact/interact with postfix is a
good idea.
- Forwarded message from Scott Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Henderson <
* SpamTalk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 17, 02 at 22:25:
> I would sack postfix before SA. Was any attempt made to query a postfix
> mailing list?
No need; see my earlier email.
msg07860/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> Well, then few people know how to use SA with postfix. I use SA with
> procmail. Of course, I won't be able to help you.
There's a webpage somewhere that explicitly lists how to call SA from
postfix as a content filter.
http://www.advosys.ca/papers/postfix-filtering.html
First Google hit on
35 matches
Mail list logo
