Re: [SAtalk] no spam today uses SA?

It looks as though the same trademark atty Joseph G Adams has attempted to register it for deersoft and for network associates.

Re: [SAtalk] RD Message body/subject filter help

Sorry to jump in here - The latest gook I received is below. The main message was marked as SPAM for other reasons, but this thread has gotten me thinking a bit. Rather than trying to build a rule to find obvious incorrect letter combinations, shouldn't we be able to get SA to recognize this as

Re: [SAtalk] Razor 2.34 / SA 2.55 bug?

At 04:10 PM 7/23/03, Theo Van Dinter wrote: >Re [SAtalk] Razor 2.34 SA 21..ems Arghh -- brain dead mail client. Thanks for the M::SA::DNS... tip. I found out something even more interesting while I was doing some testing today. If I su - spamd spamassassin -tD < sample-spam.txt I find that th

Re: [SAtalk] Razor 2.34 / SA 2.55 bug?

OK, I'll settle for a bit of documentation on how SA calls razor. Anyone know which module calls razor, or have any details about how it's done? I don't mind fooling with it a bit... Thanks. Regards, Rich At 10:06 PM 7/22/03, Rich Duzenbury wrote: Hi all, I've been us

[SAtalk] Razor 2.34 / SA 2.55 bug?

Hi all, I've been using SA for some time with good results. I've recently upgraded SA to version 2.55 and razor to 2.34 Since doing so, it seems that there are _many_ fewer hits on the razor rule. So, I ran a little test using the test file included in the distro, an exact copy of which is l

Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

> I don't believe this. I've been using SA for quite awhile and I can't > remember the last FP I got. So, fairly recently, I changed my procmail > setup so that I keep those that score between 5 and 9, everything over nine > goes out the window. About 54% of the spam I get scores more than 9.

Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

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. You never lose any mail, and you get to retreive any FPs, and you don't get to see the

Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor Working?

The sample spam in the distro is in Razor. cat sample-spam.txt | spamc One of the checks in the report should come back as RAZOR2 check, and it adds 3+ points to the score. At 12:12 PM 11/25/02, Steve Evans wrote: I know this has been asked a million times but I couldn't find it in the archives

Re: [SAtalk] Can this ruleset be done?

I use a procmail recipe that checks the X-Spam-Level flag, something like :0 * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* /dev/null Non-spam doesn't have an X-Spam-level header. Spam with less than nine stars (what I'm using) gets delivered because it doesn't match the procmail recipe. Spam with nine or

Re: [SAtalk] Razor and SpamAssassin

Try running the sample spam in the distribution. cat sample-spam.txt | spamc A working spamassassin / razor finds sample spam in the razor database, the RAZOR2_CHECK rule shows up on the sample message over here when I run it. My question is -- at what point does SpamAssassin use Razor? Becaus

Re: [SAtalk] One-liner to see how long SA takes

Steve, Nice idea, thank you. I hope you don't mind that I expanded upon it a bit. I still have some of the older format logfiles around, so I changed the whole thing to run as one perl script, and added code to check which logfile format. I also added a summary of who was getting the spam, a

[SAtalk] consumerpackage.net

I don't believe I signed up for this. Seems that if there is a 'complain to' header, it is likely spam. What do you think? Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18604 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2002 22:26:46 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18601 invoked from ne

Re: [SAtalk] spamc & procmail

Check perms. When I installed this puppy a few days back (Yep, a newbie), the perms on the *.cf files were set in such a way that spamd could not read them (readable only by root). Once that was fixed spamc/spamd started working. I also wound up changing the daemon line in the init script, a

Re: [SAtalk] flagging messages from dialup IPs?

At 11:38 AM 3/27/02, Marc MERLIN wrote: >On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:12:28AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 17:20, Marc MERLIN wrote: > > > Is spamassassin actually giving a combined 3.5 score to any > mail that > > > originated from a dialup IP, even if it was pro

Re: [SAtalk] [Bug 127] New: BUGGY_CGI score too high?

> >Since there's no way to tell whether the form was generated by FormMail v1.6 >(buggy as hell), or v1.9 (secure, or soe they say), I feel this should >probably >be scored lower. Supposedly, 1.9 is _NOT_ secure: http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/formmail-advisory.html

[SAtalk] Install question

Hi All: I've just downloaded and installed SA via CPAN. As ROOT, the test to see if it's working, namely, spamassassin -t < sample-spam.txt correctly identifies the spam. As any other 'regular' user, the same test doesn't identify the message as spam, but places a single line at the end of th