Re: [SAtalk] spam report in body

So, the problem in a nutshell is this ... SpamAssassin fails to add the spam report to the body (report_header 0) of HTML spam messages unless defang_mime is set to 1. Is this a known issue? If so, are there a work-around? - Original Message - From: "Vince Puzzella" <[EM

Re: [SAtalk] spam report in body

Also, defang_mine is set to 0 and the spam consists of HTML. It probably has nothing to do with oulook as I mentioned earlier on. The report is included with defang_mime is set to 1. - Original Message - From: "Vince Puzzella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [SAtalk] spam report in body

I've come to the conclusion that when SpamAssassin encounters spam generated with MS Outlook (express as well) it fails to include the spam report. Has anyone else noticed similar behavior? Can someone explain this? - Original Message - From: "Vince Puzzella" <[EM

[SAtalk] spam report in body

I'm having trouble getting Spamassassin to include a spam report in the message body even though I specify "report_header 0". Is there another setting that I don't know about? --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek he

RE: [SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination...?

e realm of possibility. I would be interested in seeing the ratio of spams detected versus false-positives based on this test. Is that what determines the "default score" for a test, by the way? Or is it something else? Vince Puzzella ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > It's proba

RE: [SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination...?

It's probably because a lot of small-time, DYI spammers use that software to perform bulk mailing. -Original Message- From: Tom Grandgent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination..

RE: [SAtalk] razor port

, July 17, 2002 8:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] razor port Hi, On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:30:48 -0400, Vince Puzzella wrote: VP> Never mind. Did a "man spamd" and it told me 783 by default. That's probably not what you want. 783/tcp is only used by spamd and

RE: [SAtalk] razor port

-From: Vince Puzzella Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [SAtalk] razor port Never mind.  Did a "man spamd" and it told me 783 by default.   Thanks anyway.     v i n c e  p u z z e l l a s o f t w a r e  d e v e l o p e r http://bluecatnetworks.com

RE: [SAtalk] razor port

Title: Message Never mind.  Did a "man spamd" and it told me 783 by default.   Thanks anyway.     v i n c e  p u z z e l l a s o f t w a r e  d e v e l o p e r http://bluecatnetworks.com -Original Message-From: Vince Puzzella Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:27 PMT

[SAtalk] razor port

Title: razor port Can anyone tell me what ports Vipul's Razor and DCC use by default?  I have to configure my firewall accordingly. Thanks. v i n c e  p u z z e l l a s o f t w a r e  d e v e l o p e r http://bluecatnetworks.com

RE: [SAtalk] Corrupt Header

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:58 AM To: Vince Puzzella Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Corrupt Header On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:41:03AM -0400, Vince Puzzella wrote: > The screwedupmessage.txt file contains an additional line at the top > that breaks the header format. It look

[SAtalk] Corrupt Header

Title: Corrupt Header I'm in the process of integrating spamassassin with zmailer. After running: spamassassin -t < origmessage.txt > screwedupmessage.txt The screwedupmessage.txt file contains an additional line at the top that breaks the header format. It looks like this: From [EMAIL