Re[2]: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-18 Thread Robert Menschel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Theo, Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 7:03:30 AM, you wrote: RM>> I'm limited to ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, and by design in the RM>> current versions I can change rule scores, but I can't add even the RM>> simplest of rules. TVD> Please RTFM: TV

Re: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-18 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:47:31AM -0700, Robert Menschel wrote: > I'm limited to ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, and by design in the current > versions I can change rule scores, but I can't add even the simplest of > rules. Please RTFM: allow_user_rules { 0 | 1 } (default: 0)

Re[3]: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-18 Thread Robert Menschel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Abigail, Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 10:41:46 PM, you wrote: AM> The reason the spam in your case bypassed SA but got caught AM> when you had others run it is here: >> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=9.0 >> tests=BASE64_ENC_TEXT, ..

Re[3]: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-18 Thread Robert Menschel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Abigail, Thanks for the guidance, but Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 10:30:10 PM, you wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> 1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me can implement header, body, and uri rules

Re: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-18 Thread Martin Maechler
Well, it did score 13.30 without the bayes learner and even 16.30 using the bayes data base, with SpamAssassin (2.53 1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp): --- This mail is probably spam. The original message has been attached along

Re[2]: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread Abigail Marshall
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> 2) Can anyone run the spam below against a vanilla ruleset, 2.5[45] >>> and/or 2.6, and let me know if this spam should have been caught under >>> 2.54? >> Bob, The reason the spam in your case bypassed SA but got caught when you had others run it is here: > X-

Re[2]: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread Abigail Marshall
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> 1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me >>> can implement header, body, and uri rules in user_prefs. You can implement rules by adding them to the local.cf file; here's an example of a ruleset for body: body BODY_PLING /\!

Re: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread Tony Earnshaw
Tony Earnshaw wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me can implement header, body, and uri rules in user_prefs. 2) Can anyone run the spam below against a vanilla ruleset, 2.5[45] and/or 2.6, and let me know if this spam should have be

Re: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread Cam Ellison
ntains a PGP-signed message > CLICK_BELOW(0.1 points) Asks you to click below > > Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:07:54 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread Tony Earnshaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me can implement header, body, and uri rules in user_prefs. 2) Can anyone run the spam below against a vanilla ruleset, 2.5[45] and/or 2.6, and let me know if this spam should have been caught under 2.54?

[SAtalk] Frustrating spam

2003-06-17 Thread RMSA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Things were going so well, too. SA was getting so good at trapping spam that I am now filtering three different domains through it, and was able to report to one domain's users that in all of last week, only three spam slipped through (vs hundreds fil