Re: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-20 Thread Kris Deugau
"Colin A. Bartlett" wrote: > I would think you could write a mime boundries rule like Matt suggests > but score it 0 on the site wide config. Then just score it something > higher on the individual users config file. Crew, am I wrong here? I've done exactly that for a few users with oddball email

Re: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread David B Funk
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Matt Kettler wrote: > At 01:38 PM 11/12/2003, Scott Antonivich wrote: > >but can attachments be tagged as spam per user? If > >so, what do I need to place in this users config file? > > You'd have to create a custom rule to look for mime boundaries.. > > However, to do it per-

RE: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Colin A. Bartlett
Matt Kettler Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:40 PM > At 01:38 PM 11/12/2003, Scott Antonivich wrote: > >but can attachments be tagged as spam per user? If > >so, what do I need to place in this users config file? > > You'd have to create a custom rule to look for mime boundaries.. > > However

RE: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Dan Kohn
be a good idea. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.dankohn.com/> -Original Message- From: Colin A. Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:52 To: Scott Antonivich; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sub

RE: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Matt Kettler
At 03:51 PM 11/12/2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote: I would think you could write a mime boundries rule like Matt suggests but score it 0 on the site wide config. Then just score it something higher on the individual users config file. Crew, am I wrong here? Good point.. that way you wouldn't need to

RE: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Scott Antonivich
: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:40 PM To: Scott Antonivich; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Attachments At 01:38 PM 11/12/2003, Scott Antonivich wrote: >but can attachments be tagged as spam per user? If >so, what do I need to place in this users config file? You'd have to crea

Re: [SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Matt Kettler
At 01:38 PM 11/12/2003, Scott Antonivich wrote: but can attachments be tagged as spam per user? If so, what do I need to place in this users config file? You'd have to create a custom rule to look for mime boundaries.. However, to do it per-user, you'll need to have per-user configs, and per-user

[SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Scott Antonivich
I have spamassassin working great with postfix on RedHat9. I have a user that would like to tag all attachments as spam. I realize SpamAssassin is not virus protectionbut can attachments be tagged as spam per user? If so, what do I need to place in this users config file? I assume it has somet

[SAtalk] Attachments

2003-11-12 Thread Scott Antonivich
Hello, I searched the archives and did not find an answer so I am asking the list. I have a user that wishes to have all attachments tagged as SPAM. How can this be done? I realize that it is not virus protection but they want to have all attachments tagged. Scott Antonivich -

[SAtalk] attachments again

2003-07-17 Thread Normunds
Hi! there are so many questions about spamassassin and attachment filtering, but no usable answer. May be you should put that answer in faq... how can I filter attachment headers, why my rules don't work? full UNSAFE_ATTACHMENT /Content- (Disposition|Type):.+file.+="?.+.(pif| com|scr|ln

RE: [SAtalk] Attachments vs the 2.4 way of doing it

2003-03-21 Thread Michael Moncur
> Explanation: some spammers strip the string "nospam" from address lists, > assuming that folks often disguise addresses like so > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This is why I've posted to USENET using the (valid) email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] for years - presumably when the 'nospam' is st

Re: [SAtalk] Attachments vs the 2.4 way of doing it

2003-03-19 Thread Malte S. Stretz
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 18:01 CET Steve Prior wrote: > I recently upgraded from 2.4.something to 2.5. I have found that I > miss a great deal the fact that 2.4.* used to alter the message body > when it found spam. [...] We'll release 2.51 tomorrow which has a workaround for this. If you can'