I am seeing this error in my log every so often:
Jan 4 04:19:01 www amavisd[14761]: (14761-08) SA TIMED OUT, backtrace: at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm line
1422\n\teval {...} called at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm line
1422\n\tM
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:21:02 +, Iain Stevenson wrote
> System:
>
> Linux ppc (basicallu Yellowdog), 2.4.21 kernel
> Postfix
> amavisd-new-20030314
> spamassassin 2.6 or 2.61
> clamav-0.65
>
> System is configured to use the spamd interface to spamassassin. If
> I install the 2.6 or 2.61 ver
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:21:02 +, Iain Stevenson wrote
> System:
>
> Linux ppc (basicallu Yellowdog), 2.4.21 kernel
> Postfix
> amavisd-new-20030314
> spamassassin 2.6 or 2.61
> clamav-0.65
>
> System is configured to use the spamd interface to spamassassin. If
> I install the 2.6 or 2.61 ver
On 15 Dec 2003 12:19:38 +0200, era wrote
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:01:10 -0600, Mike Vanecek
>> I ran into this installing 2.61. I just did a --force to get around
>> it, but wondered if that was a safe approach? What is the purpose
>> of perllocal.pod and why does perl-Mai
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:30:09 -0800, Justin Mason wrote
[snip]
> >http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2569
>
> Missed that one; I've just set it to be fixed for 2.62. It seems pretty
> complex; either there's several failure cases, or nobody has yet done
> enough diagnosis to get to
What is the safest way to resolve this 2.61 install error? Can I safely use
--force? What is the purpose of perllocal.pod?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpm -Uvh --test spama*.rpm perl-Mail*
Preparing...### [100%]
file
/usr/lib/perl5/site_
See http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/08/assassin.html
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nevermind. I found the answers at
http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/#faq-spam
Thanks anyway.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:27:02 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote
> I have got amavis debug running. I have postfix setup to only filter
> incoming
> (using a FILTER command in access_recipients). I ha
I have got amavis debug running. I have postfix setup to only filter incoming
(using a FILTER command in access_recipients). I have F-Prot installed.
Outgoing messages skip any scans.
Incoming messages only do virus scans, but no SA scans.
I am not sure that this is the problem, but when I star
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:57:44 -0700, Robin Lynn Frank wrote
> Maaybe someone should test if readershouse.nl is an open relay or
> open proxy.
The messages stopped a few hours after I sent them an email. Looks like they
had a problem. It would be nice if they sent me a message saying sorry, it is
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:25:58 -0400, Larry Gilson wrote
> Hi Mike,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Vanecek
>
> > Possibly the attempt is from a spammer with forged
> > information? The "to=" address is unique to this list. That
> &g
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:05:28 -0400, Larry Gilson wrote
> Hi Mike,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Vanecek
>
> > > > smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> > > > reject_rbl_client dnsbl.njabl.org,
>
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:56:28 -0400, Larry Gilson wrote
> Hi Mike,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Vanecek
>
> > Details of the problem follow:
> >
> > My restrictions in /etc/postfix/main.cf in this order are:
> >
> > permiss
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:00:08 -0700, Robin Lynn Frank wrote
> On Sunday 24 August 2003 01:04 pm, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] postfix]# grep reject /var/log/maillog
> > Aug 24 04:37:31 www postfix/smtpd[2917]: EC710E0541: reject: RCPT from
> > unknown[195.18.71.
I am trying to set up postfix to accept
[EMAIL PROTECTED] since it is otherwise rejected
due to cannot find hostname error because of main.cf uce restrictions. As an
attempt to allow the connection, I created an access.db and put a permissive
permission in main.cf.
Even though my restrictions put
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:28:22 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote
> At 09:20 AM 8/22/2003 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> >have some rejects in my maillog. Was sourceforge having problems or ???
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]$ host 66.35.250.206
> >206.250.35.66.in-addr.arpa is an a
I have some rejects in my maillog. Was sourceforge having problems or ???
[EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]$ host 66.35.250.206
206.250.35.66.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 206.0/24.250.35.66.in-addr.arpa.
206.0/24.250.35.66.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer lists.sourceforge.net.
grep -i Aug 21 /var/log/ma
I recently installed Postfix 2 RBL checks. I have been watching my mail log
looking for a reject. I know the tests are working since spamcop was down for
a while and I got a warning message in my log.
I think I understand what is happening, but would appreciate a confirmation.
Postfix checks the c
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:20:37 -0600, Dan Jones wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Vanecek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:11 PM
> To: spamassassin_list
> Subject: [SAtalk] Reject based on SA score
>
> Running RH 9, SA 2.55 w/spamc
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:35:04 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote
> ... it's an example of what the new Postfix snapshot with amavisd-
> new as smtp proxy and points-modified SA 2.60-CVS can do.
>
> This is what [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets mailed, every time spam
> is cesspitted. Cesspitting doesn't just mean t
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:33:54 +0900, alan premselaar wrote
> On 7/10/03 11:48 AM, "Mike Vanecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]$ whois uchuu.12inch.com
> > BW whois 3.4 by Bill Weinman (http://whois.bw.org/)
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:17:18 +0900, alan premselaar wrote
> Mike Vanecek,
>
> >I think I am under a DOS attack on port 25. I have received 2172 smtp packets
> >from the same location yesterday. Due to this activity I have set my firewall
> >to reject all incoming packet
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:20:37 -0600, Dan Jones wrote
> Postfix does have an smtp_reject RBL feature. I currently use it with
spamassassin. I prefer to allow all other mail(not rejected) to be scanned
instead of discarding, this allows the end users on my network to either scan
or discard the mail th
I think I am under a DOS attack on port 25. I have received 2172 smtp packets
from the same location yesterday. Due to this activity I have set my firewall
to reject all incoming packets from Japan. I notified [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] of the problem.
Is there an
Thanks to all that replied.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:40:53 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote
> Mike Vanecek wrote:
>
> > Running RH 9, SA 2.55 w/spamc/d, Postfix, procmail, ...
>
> This would be "old fashioned" Postfix. I run 2.0.12, normally - but
> am looking a
Running RH 9, SA 2.55 w/spamc/d, Postfix, procmail, ...
Q1.
Does a configuration exist (mailscanner, or such utilities) that would allow
one to do a standard reject based on the hit score? Based on my existing
setup, by the time the message goes through SA via spamc, it is already out of
postfix
Wonderful, now the idiots are harvesting email addresses from bugzilla:
From: "Darla Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Darla Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 03 19:41:02 GMT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
MIME-V
Does any forward the spam messages to this list to organizations such as
spamcop, and so on?
If all we can do is filter the turkey with SA and not shut him down, then what
is the use of it?
I am beginning to think that the collective efforts of many organizations to
shut down spammers is a dismal
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:39:28 -0500, Jody Cleveland wrote
> > Mine's in /usr/local - not /usr; has been since 2.4+
>
> I found a file called spam in /usr/bin, but no spamc anywhere...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]$ d /usr/bin/spam
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root5 Apr 8 12:05 /usr/bin/spam ->
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:50:17 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote
> Mike Vanecek wrote:
>
> > ??
>
> Mine's in /usr/local - not /usr; has been since 2.4+
>
I wonder what makes the difference? I have been installing from src rpms since
2.4 myself. IIRC, it was installing in /usr
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:50:21 -0500, Jody Cleveland wrote
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write me back.
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]$ locate spamc | grep -iv spool
> >
> > ??
>
> No spamc... All I got were results back for that was spamcop stuff.
> Do you think there's something
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:40:17 -0500, Jody Cleveland wrote
> Hello,
>
> I recently installed version 2.55 via cpan in redhat 8. I've also got
> mailscanner running. I've been trying to get spamassassin setup
> using a database for user preferences. I followed all the
> instructions on the readme o
Version 2.52
timelog_path /path/to/dir (default: NULL)
If you set this value, SpamAssassin will try to create
logfiles for each message it processes and dump infor?
mation on how fast it ran, and in which parts of the
code the time was sp
Everything in 2.43 seems to be running OK, except I see the following entry in
my SA log:
Mar 12 21:29:21 www spamd[313]: Still running as root: user not specified, not
found, or set to root. Fall back to nobody.
Mar 12 21:29:21 www spamd[313]: processing message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for rh_lists:
I would normally send spam over to my spamcop reporting acccount. Do the list
owners do a spam report follow-up to spam? Obviously, sending the spam to
spamcop would require some editing so that the spamassassin addresses don't
end up being reported.
I guess it is just delete time. Gotta wonder ab
The doco states:
# unscored by default -- commercial services. If you pay for these,
# give them a score so they will be checked.
#
# 0.5 to 1.0 is probably good for the DUL scores
# 1.5 to 2.0 is probably good for the rest
score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET0
score RCVD_IN_DUL
-- Original Message ---
From: Adrian Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:23:07 +0800
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] ok_locales xx
> Adrian Ho wrote on Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:23:07 +0800:
>>On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 07:43:46PM -0600, Mike Vanecek
>From SA configuration instructions:
[Quote]
ok_locales xx [ yy zz ... ] (default: all)
Which locales (country codes) are considered OK to receive mail from. Mail
using character sets used by languages in these countries, will not be marked
as possibly being spam in a foreign language.
Note th
Theo, please ignore my previous reply. Thank you for your help.
-- Original Message ---
From: Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mike Vanecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:56:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] New SA Install
> On Fri, Jan 10, 200
I have recently installed version 2.43 SA using spamd and have a couple of
questions. I tried to search the archives, but they went down just as I was
starting...
My local.cf settings are:
required_hits 5
version_tag mtvrules1 # append my info to the version
rewrite_subject 1 #
40 matches
Mail list logo
